#institute for local self-reliance

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Amazon’s financial shell game let it create an “impossible” monopoly

I'm on tour with my new, nationally bestselling novel The Bezzle! Catch me in TUCSON (Mar 9-10), then San Francisco (Mar 13), Anaheim, and more!

For the pro-monopoly crowd that absolutely dominated antitrust law from the Carter administration until 2020, Amazon presents a genuinely puzzling paradox: the company's monopoly power was never supposed to emerge, and if it did, it should have crumbled immediately.

Pro-monopoly economists embody Ely Devons's famous aphorism that "If economists wished to study the horse, they wouldn’t go and look at horses. They’d sit in their studies and say to themselves, ‘What would I do if I were a horse?’":

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

Rather than using the way the world actually works as their starting point for how to think about it, they build elaborate models out of abstract principles like "rational actors." The resulting mathematical models are so abstractly elegant that it's easy to forget that they're just imaginative exercises, disconnected from reality:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/03/all-models-are-wrong/#some-are-useful

These models predicted that it would be impossible for Amazon to attain monopoly power. Even if they became a monopoly – in the sense of dominating sales of various kinds of goods – the company still wouldn't get monopoly power.

For example, if Amazon tried to take over a category by selling goods below cost ("predatory pricing"), then rivals could just wait until the company got tired of losing money and put prices back up, and then those rivals could go back to competing. And if Amazon tried to keep the loss-leader going indefinitely by "cross-subsidizing" the losses with high-margin profits from some other part of its business, rivals could sell those high margin goods at a lower margin, which would lure away Amazon customers and cut the supply lines for the price war it was fighting with its discounted products.

That's what the model predicted, but it's not what happened in the real world. In the real world, Amazon was able use its access to the capital markets to embark on scorched-earth predatory pricing campaigns. When diapers.com refused to sell out to Amazon, the company casually committed $100m to selling diapers below cost. Diapers.com went bust, Amazon bought it for pennies on the dollar and shut it down:

https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/13/18563379/amazon-predatory-pricing-antitrust-law

Investors got the message: don't compete with Amazon. They can remain predatory longer than you can remain solvent.

Now, not everyone shared the antitrust establishment's confidence that Amazon couldn't create a durable monopoly with market power. In 2017, Lina Khan – then a third year law student – published "Amazon's Antitrust Paradox," a landmark paper arguing that Amazon had all the tools it needed to amass monopoly power:

https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-paradox

Today, Khan is chair of the FTC, and has brought a case against Amazon that builds on some of the theories from that paper. One outcome of that suit is an unprecedented look at Amazon's internal operations. But, as the Institute for Local Self-Reliance's Stacy Mitchell describes in a piece for The Atlantic, key pieces of information have been totally redacted in the court exhibits:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/02/amazon-profits-antitrust-ftc/677580/

The most important missing datum: how much money Amazon makes from each of its lines of business. Amazon's own story is that it basically breaks even on its retail operation, and keeps the whole business afloat with profits from its AWS cloud computing division. This is an important narrative, because if it's true, then Amazon can't be forcing up retail prices, which is the crux of the FTC's case against the company.

Here's what we know for sure about Amazon's retail business. First: merchants can't live without Amazon. The majority of US households have Prime, and 90% of Prime households start their ecommerce searches on Amazon; if they find what they're looking for, they buy it and stop. Thus, merchants who don't sell on Amazon just don't sell. This is called "monopsony power" and it's a lot easier to maintain than monopoly power. For most manufacturers, a 10% overnight drop in sales is a catastrophe, so a retailer that commands even a 10% market-share can extract huge concessions from its suppliers. Amazon's share of most categories of goods is a lot higher than 10%!

What kind of monopsony power does Amazon wield? Well, for one thing, it is able to levy a huge tax on its sellers. Add up all the junk-fees Amazon charges its platform sellers and it comes out to 45-51%:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/25/greedflation/#commissar-bezos

Competitive businesses just don't have 45% margins! No one can afford to kick that much back to Amazon. What is a merchant to do? Sell on Amazon and you lose money on every sale. Don't sell on Amazon and you don't get any business.

The only answer: raise prices on Amazon. After all, Prime customers – the majority of Amazon's retail business – don't shop for competitive prices. If Amazon wants a 45% vig, you can raise your Amazon prices by a third and just about break even.

But Amazon is wise to that: they have a "most favored nation" rule that punishes suppliers who sell goods more cheaply in rival stores, or even on their own site. The punishments vary, from banishing your products to page ten million of search-results to simply kicking you off the platform. With publishers, Amazon reserves the right to lower the prices they set when listing their books, to match the lowest price on the web, and paying publishers less for each sale.

That means that suppliers who sell on Amazon (which is anyone who wants to stay in business) have to dramatically hike their prices on Amazon, and when they do, they also have to hike their prices everywhere else (no wonder Prime customers don't bother to search elsewhere for a better deal!).

Now, Amazon says this is all wrong. That 45-51% vig they claim from business customers is barely enough to break even. The company's profits – they insist – come from selling AWS cloud service. The retail operation is just a public service they provide to us with cross-subsidy from those fat AWS margins.

This is a hell of a claim. Last year, Amazon raked in $130 billion in seller fees. In other words: they booked more revenue from junk fees than Bank of America made through its whole operation. Amazon's junk fees add up to more than all of Meta's revenues:

https://s2.q4cdn.com/299287126/files/doc_financials/2023/q4/AMZN-Q4-2023-Earnings-Release.pdf

Amazon claims that none of this is profit – it's just covering their operating expenses. According to Amazon, its non-AWS units combined have a one percent profit margin.

Now, this is an eye-popping claim indeed. Amazon is a public company, which means that it has to make thorough quarterly and annual financial disclosures breaking down its profit and loss. You'd think that somewhere in those disclosures, we'd find some details.

You'd think so, but you'd be wrong. Amazon's disclosures do not break out profits and losses by segment. SEC rules actually require the company to make these per-segment disclosures:

https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3524&context=lawreview#:~:text=If%20a%20company%20has%20more,income%20taxes%20and%20extraordinary%20items.

That rule was enacted in 1966, out of concern that companies could use cross-subsidies to fund predatory pricing and other anticompetitive practices. But over the years, the SEC just…stopped enforcing the rule. Companies have "near total managerial discretion" to lump business units together and group their profits and losses in bloated, undifferentiated balance-sheet items:

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/public-purpose/publications/2021/dec/crouching-tiger-hidden-dragons

As Mitchell points you, it's not just Amazon that flouts this rule. We don't know how much money Google makes on Youtube, or how much Apple makes from the App Store (Apple told a federal judge that this number doesn't exist). Warren Buffett – with significant interest in hundreds of companies across dozens of markets – only breaks out seven segments of profit-and-loss for Berkshire Hathaway.

Recall that there is one category of data from the FTC's antitrust case against Amazon that has been completely redacted. One guess which category that is! Yup, the profit-and-loss for its retail operation and other lines of business.

These redactions are the judge's fault, but the real fault lies with the SEC. Amazon is a public company. In exchange for access to the capital markets, it owes the public certain disclosures, which are set out in the SEC's rulebook. The SEC lets Amazon – and other gigantic companies – get away with a degree of secrecy that should disqualify it from offering stock to the public. As Mitchell says, SEC chairman Gary Gensler should adopt "new rules that more concretely define what qualifies as a segment and remove the discretion given to executives."

Amazon is the poster-child for monopoly run amok. As Yanis Varoufakis writes in Technofeudalism, Amazon has actually become a post-capitalist enterprise. Amazon doesn't make profits (money derived from selling goods); it makes rents (money charged to people who are seeking to make a profit):

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/28/cloudalists/#cloud-capital

Profits are the defining characteristic of a capitalist economy; rents are the defining characteristic of feudalism. Amazon looks like a bazaar where thousands of merchants offer goods for sale to the public, but look harder and you discover that all those stallholders are totally controlled by Amazon. Amazon decides what goods they can sell, how much they cost, and whether a customer ever sees them. And then Amazon takes $0.45-51 out of every dollar. Amazon's "marketplace" isn't like a flea market, it's more like the interconnected shops on Disneyland's Main Street, USA: the sign over the door might say "20th Century Music Company" or "Emporium," but they're all just one store, run by one company.

And because Amazon has so much control over its sellers, it is able to exercise power over its buyers. Amazon's search results push down the best deals on the platform and promote results from more expensive, lower-quality items whose sellers have paid a fortune for an "ad" (not really an ad, but rather the top spot in search listings):

https://pluralistic.net/2023/11/29/aethelred-the-unready/#not-one-penny-for-tribute

This is "Amazon's pricing paradox." Amazon can claim that it offers low-priced, high-quality goods on the platform, but it makes $38b/year pushing those good deals way, way down in its search results. The top result for your Amazon search averages 29% more expensive than the best deal Amazon offers. Buy something from those first four spots and you'll pay a 25% premium. On average, you need to pick the seventeenth item on the search results page to get the best deal:

https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/3645/

For 40 years, pro-monopoly economists claimed that it would be impossible for Amazon to attain monopoly power over buyers and sellers. Today, Amazon exercises that power so thoroughly that its junk-fee revenues alone exceed the total revenues of Bank of America. Amazon's story – that these fees barely stretch to covering its costs – assumes a nearly inconceivable level of credulity in its audience. Regrettably – for the human race – there is a cohort of senior, highly respected economists who possess this degree of credulity and more.

Of course, there's an easy way to settle the argument: Amazon could just comply with SEC regs and break out its P&L for its e-commerce operation. I assure you, they're not hiding this data because they think you'll be pleasantly surprised when they do and they don't want to spoil the moment.

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/2024/03/01/managerial-discretion/#junk-fees

Image: Doc Searls (modified) https://www.flickr.com/photos/docsearls/4863121221/

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

[dailyanarchistposts]

Ex-economy

Education has historically been used by the State and the Church to produce a subservient population. This institution is cancerous and must be abolished. But the continuation of learning is desirable, in this new system knowledge will be free and available to all who want it. Normal barriers to education need to be removed for marginalized people. We must unschool ourselves away from the normative style of mass education and embrace more varied and individualized methods. In unschooling people of all ages are free to determine their own coursework and pace of study. The resources and knowledge of schools and universities will be expropriated for the good of the communities.

Scientists can organize themselves to provide training and maintain laboratories. They will have to discuss and agree on ways to further the scientific pursuits they are engaged in without capitalizing on knowledge production. Science will be conducted for the betterment of all people. This is because the knowledge a scientist uses is given to them through the community, and therefore their work should provide a benefit in return. There will need to be further reconciliation processes around the abuses carried out by scientists historically, such as the development of fossil fuel and nuclear technologies, or the creation of weapons of war.

Under Anaculture production will be ran by workers for workers, instead of being ran for the profit of the capitalist class. We will adopt the term ex-worker to describe the situation of seizing our workplaces and deciding what their resources should be used for. Workplaces should be organized to produce something socially useful. This productive force of ex-workers would constitute the only economic driver, absent the State and capitalist economy. Federations made up of ex-workers would self-organize themselves into federations whose delegates would be responsive to the mandate of it’s collective. If not they would be immediately recallable.

There will be no such thing as forced labor in our new world. This is an ethical imperative, but we must extend this logic to the traditionally gendered domestic labor that currently goes unpaid. This gendered labor will also be abolished. A balance will be struck between the creative needs of the ex-workers and the productive needs of the community, and planet as a whole. Destructive capitalist and “green” energy systems will be decommissioned and deconstructed as safely as possible. We will decide among ourselves what technology to pursue and develop. We will keep in mind the “seven generations” outlook that seeks to protect the earth systems for at least seven generations to come.

When people can meet their needs from a small local network they are freed from reliance on exploitative socioeconomic systems. We should seek to keep our food systems as localized as possible to distribute the power that comes from production of food. It will be necessary for different communities to organize distribution across territories for mutual benefit. With no borders travel will be unimpeded, when done respectfully, and this should be encouraged by anarchists.

We will abolish all monetary systems and debts, instead the exchange of goods will be accomplished through voluntary compacts between consumer and producer, or through a gift economy. Communities should pursue food sovereignty, meeting the majority of their survival needs from their local land base, but beyond that, infrastructures should be maintained to encourage exchange and travel. We must ensure the safe travel of all climate refugees, nomads, the gender non-conforming, and those fleeing domestic violence. We will also apply these principles of self-determination and horizontality to the current communications systems, reorganizing them to produce useful content for the revolution.

[critical-skeptic]

Understanding the Southern Perimeter’s Republican Lean: A Multi-Factor Analysis

The political landscape of the United States is often discussed in terms of blue and red states, with certain regions consistently leaning Republican or Democrat. However, the southern perimeter of the continental U.S.—stretching from California to Florida—presents a unique case study. Despite cultural diversity, varying industries, and demographic shifts, this region generally leans Republican. This alignment, which includes border states with Mexico and those along the Gulf Coast, emerges from a complex interplay of geography, economics, historical values, and cultural attitudes.

1. Geographical and Climatic Influences

The southern perimeter is defined by its warmer climates, which attract specific demographics, most notably retirees. States like Florida have become retirement havens, drawing older populations from traditionally Democratic northern regions. This migration brings a demographic that often prioritizes conservative values such as lower taxes, property rights, and fiscal conservatism, aligning well with Republican ideologies. The subtropical to desert-like climate also shapes industries in these states, favoring agriculture, tourism, and energy sectors that lean conservative due to their reliance on limited government intervention and favorable regulatory policies.

Additionally, the shape and layout of these states play a role. California’s extensive north-south reach and diverse climate foster a mix of political ideologies, making it more complex, though its highly populated coastal cities tend toward Democratic dominance. By contrast, Arizona and Texas, with expansive rural and desert regions along the border, amplify conservative values centered on self-reliance and individualism, often associated with frontier mentality.

2. Historical and Cultural Factors

Southern states, including those on the southern perimeter, have a strong cultural legacy of conservatism rooted in a combination of frontier independence, skepticism of federal oversight, and a tradition of states’ rights. This tradition resonates with Republican ideology, which emphasizes limited government, individual liberties, and a cautious approach to social change. While California may stand as an exception due to its urban liberal hubs, the states from Texas through Florida reflect this traditional conservatism that has persisted over decades, reinforced by political institutions and local values.

Texas, in particular, embodies this “frontier spirit.” The state’s long history as a republic, combined with its emphasis on rugged individualism and suspicion of centralized power, aligns with Republican principles. Arizona, with its substantial rural population and similar desert environment, mirrors this mindset. The “frontier mentality” persists in these areas, where local culture values autonomy and self-reliance—traits that naturally dovetail with conservative ideologies.

3. Economics and Industry Patterns

Economic structures in these states contribute heavily to their conservative leanings. Texas, for example, is a major oil producer, while Florida’s economy is driven by tourism and agriculture. These industries often thrive under conservative economic policies, which typically favor deregulation, low taxes, and minimal government interference. Republican economic policies are seen as beneficial by stakeholders in these sectors, making the party an appealing choice for many business owners and workers.

Moreover, certain industries in these states feel the impact of immigration more directly, leading to support for stricter border policies and a more conservative stance on national security. Agriculture and construction in Arizona, Texas, and Florida rely heavily on immigrant labor but also face challenges from undocumented immigration, shaping local attitudes toward Republican policies that prioritize border enforcement and immigration control.

4. Proximity to the Mexican Border and the “Diversity Paradox”

For border states like Texas and Arizona, proximity to Mexico brings border security and immigration issues to the forefront of local politics. This isn’t just about geographical closeness; it’s about the daily reality of cross-border dynamics that influence attitudes toward national security, cultural integration, and economic impacts. The southern perimeter’s conservative alignment is often reinforced by a sense of “us vs. them,” a cultural boundary that shapes perceptions of national identity and sovereignty.

Counterintuitively, the high diversity in these border states does not automatically translate to liberal leanings. Instead, the influx of new populations can sometimes trigger a conservative backlash, as local communities respond to perceived cultural and economic shifts. This “diversity paradox” suggests that in some cases, increasing diversity can actually entrench conservative ideologies as groups seek to preserve traditional values in the face of demographic changes. California and New Mexico differ here, as both have deeply rooted Hispanic and Native American populations that pre-date current immigration concerns, leading to a multicultural identity that integrates rather than reacts to diversity.

5. Rural-Urban Divide and Population Distribution

The rural-urban divide is a significant factor in understanding Republican dominance in the southern perimeter states. Urban centers in Texas (Austin, Houston, and Dallas), Arizona (Phoenix), and Florida (Miami) tend to lean Democratic, but the vast rural areas and smaller towns remain conservative strongholds. Given that these rural and suburban regions often have disproportionate legislative influence due to gerrymandering and districting practices, Republican preferences are amplified politically.

In these rural areas, the appeal of Republican ideology is tied to a distrust of federal intervention and a commitment to traditional social values. The conservative emphasis on “law and order” and the right to bear arms resonates with rural populations who prioritize self-sufficiency and often feel culturally alienated from urban liberalism. This dynamic creates a political landscape where urban and rural values clash, but the rural-dominated districts sustain Republican influence at state and federal levels.

6. Geopolitical Significance and National Policy

Border security, immigration, and national security are not merely abstract political issues in the southern perimeter states; they are local realities. The Republican party’s stance on border control and immigration resonates with communities directly impacted by these policies. For residents in states like Texas and Arizona, issues of border security are personal and immediate, influencing their political alignment. The southern perimeter’s exposure to these cross-border dynamics fuels support for policies that emphasize strict immigration enforcement, contributing to the region’s Republican leanings.

Furthermore, the high visibility of national debates on immigration and security in these states places them in a unique geopolitical position. Residents of the southern perimeter often view federal immigration policies through the lens of local impact, which can heighten conservative stances on enforcement and sovereignty, particularly during times of political polarization on these issues.

The southern perimeter’s Republican alignment, spanning from California to Florida, is a product of interwoven geographical, economic, cultural, and historical factors. From the lure of warm climates drawing conservative-leaning demographics to the economic structures that benefit from conservative policies, each element reinforces the region’s political leanings. The combination of rural influence, frontier mentality, and proximity to the Mexican border creates a unique political identity that sustains Republican dominance.

While California and New Mexico serve as exceptions due to their own unique geographic and cultural compositions, the southern perimeter as a whole demonstrates the impact of physical geography and local demographics on political identity. This analysis underscores how politics in border states cannot be reduced to simple assumptions about diversity or proximity to Mexico; instead, it is the product of complex, localized dynamics that shape conservative values and Republican support across the region.

[solarpunkbusiness]

[theromanticscrooge]

Don't Let Him Win!

Ever since early November, I keep looping back to Boxman's spiel at the end of "Dark Plaza."

Heroes vs. villains can be portrayed as a very black and white concept; it's the good guys vs the bad guys. Thankfully, most stories playing with this concept introduce some shades of gray or nuance at some point. This is a tangent, but Villainous has shown a lot of potential for dabbling in this between the sympathetic Penumbra in the pilot episode and how quickly heroes tried to cover up how manipulative and totalitarian Miss Heed was in her corner of the world. Penumbra was campaigning for more rights and a louder voice as part of a marginalized group. Miss Heed was abusing a mix of something akin to a love potion and her social media influence to create an artificial crowd of ever-present admirers, paint a flattering and 'perfect' image of herself as a public figure, and maintain some level of soft power/influence in a vie for Goldheart's affections as well as fighting her painfully low self-esteem. One is a villain; Penumbra had to seek a faustian bargain for a civil rights issue. The other is a hero; Miss Heed is a reflection of how toxic celebrity culture is and how much she gets away with because of the social prestige and implicit trust around heroes. Cartoon Network: Greenlight more Villainous! These guys are cooking and its fucking brilliant!

In regards to O.K. K.O., the scale in different levels of evil between Boxman and Venomous is an entry point for shades of gray. Boxman is primarily a one-track-minded Saturday morning cartoon villain; he's focused on destroying the Plaza and he'll demoralize or torment his victims, but he has hard limits like he's not going to kill. Venomous is disturbingly nonchalant about tampering with local water supplies and creating sapient goo clones that can and will get killed for the express purpose of traumatizing a victim. Arguably, Boxman ups his threat level after he starts getting closer with Venomous. Trying to destroy the Plaza is amateur hour. When Boxmore sends Ernesto to infiltrate the local school and deliberately water down what kind of education and feedback the kids are getting, that's a long-term plan to neuter how much of a threat the next generation of heroes could be. This syncs up with Boxman's bigger ambitions of destroying POINT outright, but it doesn't match his track record of petty, small peanuts targets. Venomous is the big-picture guy. He definitely influenced some of Boxman's worse, higher threat schemes.

In a nutshell, Boxmore's villains are a small-scale look at what kinds of villains there are in Lakewood. Presumably, most of them are somewhere between Boxman and Venomous. There isn't enough on-screen evidence to make a definite call, but at the very least, the other villains have a wide enough variety of interests and projects that Boxman is a scoffed-at anomaly. They probably have one or two active hero rivals, black market wares, and their specific brand of evil calling card like Boxman's robots or Venomous' menagerie of biological horrors. That said, the villains are manageable as long as the heroes are a strong, collaborative front. Even with POINT as a strained and pulled-taut institution, heroes tow the line. They either uphold the status quo or keep quiet in service of the all-encompassing endgoal "stop the villains."

Foxtail and the over-reliance on Chip Damage run a wrecking ball through whatever illusion of solidarity the heroes had. Foxtail has no qualms about sending Carol in as a secret agent to spy on the Plaza rather than lay out her concerns to Mr. Gar. She doesn't trust Mr. Gar; she dismisses him and the Plaza at large as lesser heroes because they're self-trained, entry-level, or have no training whatsoever. She wants soldiers, not hobbyists, civilians, and part-timers. There's more emphasis on installing "bootstrap" mentality and strengthening highly individualistic responses to threats in POINT students vs teaching them to collaborate with or complement each other's strengths. Nobody talks to each other. Everyone has different opinions on how to address and stop villains. There's no room for compromise. Foxtail embodies the forceful, "my way or the highway" approach that ultimately splinters the hero side. She quashes her teammates with the same force and power she'd otherwise direct at a villain. Instead of heroes fighting villains, its heroes fighting heroes based on differences in personal philosophy, morals, and approach.

And as absurd as this comparison might be, I've been thinking about this allegory in relation to how much more polarized politics have become in the U.S. This allegory is applicable to a WIDE variety of opposing factions and circumstances. This is more my interpretation and interaction with this story. On the surface, American politics is majority Republicans vs Democrats. Its ridiculous that this system works like this and the public is so locked into this idea that its almost inconceivable to dismantle it, but that's a different discussion for someone way more knowledgeable than me. There's been more stereotyping and creating strawmen. All 'conservatives' are pearl-clutching, highly religious, puritanical bigots that wear MAGA hats and sing Trump's praises. All 'leftists' are atheistic, highly sensitive, everything goes, multi-colored hair, gender-blurring and ambiguous 'freaks.' I lean very far left. My dad isn't quite a MAGA conservative, but he's painted me as a boogeyman; a 'confused woman'-I'm a transmasc person-that prioritizes feelings and propaganda over biology. To be fair, I've painted him in a similar light: He's a tone-deaf bigot that relies on Fox News for a steady diet of Ben Shapiro bullshit and thinks he's read-up on biology just because he got a master's degree 20 years ago. Time is frozen for him.

When I'm in the heat of the moment, it's exceedingly easy to turn arguing with Dad into a Boomer vs Millennial spat or a milquetoast conservative vs a radical leftist. In the moment, he's the target. He's the enemy that needs to be addressed, rebutted, and taken down. Ideological differences do break down even further than the supposedly clear-cut red v blue. In a room of Democrats or anyone left-leaning, certain issues can and do turn the meeting into further splintering and cannibalizing each other. Voters who refused to support Kamala for whatever reason were lumped together with voters that chose third-party candidates or didn't vote whatsoever and blamed for the low voter turnout. In stark contrast, the Trump voters were able to pull together long enough to get voters to the polls. Trump voters are still a united front.

Yes, I'm going there: Instead of digging into people that didn't vote, its worth investigating what changes they want to see and what support they need. There's so much discussion about building community and becoming a stronger, more unified front. That means everyone even slightly left-leaning can and should learn how to listen more, how to talk to and collaborate with everyone that's anywhere close to our mutual goal of stop, challenge, and push back against Trump and his regime's bullshit. We don't have to like each other or unanimously agree on everything, but it's a start if the focus can stay long enough on 'compromise to reach 'x' goal.' Especially in smaller, local communities. There's more immediate benefit in getting to know our neighbors and working with them to build a robust community that can better withstand whatever is rolling down the pipeline next. Whether it's moral support, helping with chores, exchanging services or resources, whatever, learning how to collaborate with and lean on other people is more important right now than ever. Its possible to start this ripple effect on a small scale. I'm putting this out there in the hopes of raising my own morale and hope as much as anyone else's.

This goes beyond red v. blue too. Its more obvious than ever who the real threat is given increasing wealth disparity, how many big corporations thinly skirt trust-busting moral paniclaws, open discussions about oligarchs, and even the fact Elon Musk was sitting behind Trump on inauguration day. The more focus is redirected to moral panic around trans rights rather than how much political power billionaires have, the easier it is to pit all of us against each other. Despite what arguments I've had with my dad, we agree that people should be fairly compensated, treated kindly in the workplace, and have full access to health insurance. There's common ground. That's what I want to actively focus on and work towards.

When O.K. K.O. trotted Boxman out to announce that he benefits from heroes fighting each other, the entire point was to emphasize the importance of solidarity. The entirety of "Dark Plaza" and what leads up to it are an exploration on why and how solidarity can be such a difficult goal. There's so many different personalities at play. The wide variety of backgrounds, opinions, morals, goals, and what is considered a higher priority for one person vs another play a huge role in the complexities of community and society at large. While these can be difficult, its important to try and approach others with empathy, compassion, and patience. While its not a complex, in-depth exploration on this, there's still something really powerful in the conclusion being heroes coming together and promising to work towards mutual change.

Even Boxman's comeuppance involved K.O. getting a boost from Foxtail. Success relies on either giving a hand up or getting a boost. If we want solidarity, we have to believe we can get there and make it a reality.

[unpluggedfinancial]

Bitcoin and Morality: How Digital Currency Could Lead to a Better Society

In a world where financial systems are often riddled with corruption, manipulation, and inequality, the idea that a digital currency could lead to a more moral society may seem far-fetched. However, Bitcoin, with its decentralized and transparent nature, offers a glimpse into a future where financial fairness and ethical behavior could become the norm rather than the exception.

The Moral Challenges of Fiat Currency

For centuries, fiat currencies have been the bedrock of global economies. Yet, their management by governments and central banks often introduces moral dilemmas that go unnoticed by the general public. Inflation, for instance, is a hidden tax that erodes the savings and purchasing power of everyday citizens, disproportionately affecting those with lower incomes. When governments print money to bail out failing institutions, it creates a sense of injustice—rewarding the irresponsible while punishing the prudent.

Furthermore, traditional banking systems frequently exclude vast segments of the population, particularly in developing countries, perpetuating cycles of poverty and financial exclusion. These moral challenges inherent in fiat systems raise an important question: Can we create a financial system that is fair, transparent, and accessible to all?

The Ethical Foundation of Bitcoin

Bitcoin was born out of the 2008 financial crisis—a response to the widespread disillusionment with traditional financial institutions. At its core, Bitcoin embodies principles that align with ethical behavior: transparency, decentralization, and the concept of sound money.

Unlike fiat currencies, Bitcoin’s supply is capped at 21 million, ensuring that no central authority can devalue it through excessive printing. This scarcity introduces a level of trust and predictability that fiat currencies lack. Moreover, Bitcoin operates on a decentralized network, meaning no single entity controls it. Transactions are verified by a global network of nodes, making manipulation nearly impossible and fostering a sense of fairness.

Bitcoin as a Tool for Financial Fairness

One of the most compelling aspects of Bitcoin is its potential to promote financial fairness. In a world where access to financial services is often limited by geography, income, or political circumstances, Bitcoin offers an alternative. With nothing more than an internet connection, anyone can participate in the Bitcoin network, regardless of nationality or economic status.

This equal access is revolutionary. It levels the playing field, allowing individuals in developing countries to store and transfer wealth without relying on unstable local currencies or predatory financial institutions. Moreover, the peer-to-peer nature of Bitcoin transactions eliminates intermediaries, reducing fees and preventing third-party censorship.

The Influence of Bitcoin on Personal Responsibility

Bitcoin’s decentralized nature requires individuals to take responsibility for their own wealth. Unlike traditional banking, where a lost password can be reset with a phone call, Bitcoin ownership comes with the responsibility of securing one’s private keys. This shift from reliance on third parties to self-reliance fosters a greater sense of ownership and accountability.

In a broader sense, this responsibility can extend beyond financial matters. As people become more accustomed to taking control of their financial future, they may also develop a stronger sense of ethical behavior in other areas of their lives. The discipline required to manage Bitcoin effectively could encourage individuals to adopt a more thoughtful and deliberate approach to their decisions, leading to a more responsible society.

A Society Shaped by Bitcoin

Imagine a society where Bitcoin is the standard. Such a society could see significant reductions in corruption, as Bitcoin’s transparent ledger (the blockchain) makes it nearly impossible for illicit activities to go unnoticed. Every transaction is recorded on the blockchain, providing an immutable record that can be audited by anyone. This transparency could deter corrupt practices and promote honesty and accountability at all levels of society.

Furthermore, a Bitcoin-standard society would empower individuals to take control of their financial futures. Without the need for intermediaries, people could transact freely and securely, without fear of censorship or confiscation. This financial sovereignty could lead to a more liberated and morally conscious population, as individuals would no longer be at the mercy of corrupt or unstable financial institutions.

Challenges and Criticisms

While the potential for Bitcoin to foster a more moral society is compelling, it is not without challenges. One of the most common criticisms is Bitcoin’s energy consumption, with some arguing that the environmental impact of mining Bitcoin could outweigh its benefits. However, proponents point out that Bitcoin mining is increasingly powered by renewable energy and that the long-term benefits of a decentralized, transparent financial system could far outweigh these concerns.

Another challenge is the potential for Bitcoin to be used for illicit activities. While Bitcoin’s transparency makes it difficult to hide such activities, the pseudonymous nature of transactions has raised concerns. However, ongoing developments in blockchain analysis and regulatory frameworks are addressing these issues, making Bitcoin a safer and more secure option for all users.

Finally, the risk of wealth inequality in a Bitcoin-dominated economy is a valid concern. Early adopters of Bitcoin have seen significant gains, leading to fears that wealth concentration could occur. However, as Bitcoin continues to gain mainstream adoption, its distribution is likely to become more equitable, especially as more individuals and institutions recognize its value and utility.

Conclusion

Bitcoin is more than just a financial asset; it represents a paradigm shift in how we think about money, fairness, and morality. By promoting transparency, decentralization, and personal responsibility, Bitcoin has the potential to foster a more ethical and just society. While challenges remain, the possibilities for positive change are profound.

As we move forward into a world where Bitcoin plays an increasingly significant role, it’s essential to consider not just the financial implications, but the moral ones as well. Could Bitcoin be the key to creating a better, more ethical society? Only time will tell, but the potential is there for those who dare to imagine a future where money, morality, and fairness go hand in hand.

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

Thank you for your support!

[ecosentido]

-

Even as community composting increasingly makes its voice heard in the national composting conversation, data on the sector — key for both advocates of community composting and the composters themselves — can be hard to come by. The newly released report, A Growing Movement: 2022 Community Composter Census, from the Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR) aims to fill that gap. Its goal is to document the distinct nature of the community composting sector and to serve as a baseline for measuring its future evolution. The findings reveal that while it is true community composters face a unique set of challenges in an economic and political landscape that favors industrial operations, the sector has the potential to boom.

[dipperdesperado]

mutual aid groups are hella solarpunk

A foundational piece of creating any solarpunk future is building in a conception of solidarity. Solidarity is working together as partners towards shared interests and community resiliency. We’ve seen a lot of solidarity in recent years as mutual aid groups start to catch on and persist. In the wake of the pandemic, a lot of people were left without support systems from the institutions that they live under. People started autonomously creating resources to support one another to make sure people felt connected. It wasn’t perfect, and many groups have burned out and aren’t as operational, but I think that this is not an idea that should leave our consciousness.

Mutual Aid?

Mutual aid is, in a pithy phrase, “solidarity, not charity”. It’s a way to think about how to support a community as a collaborative, participatory member of that community. It’s using a focus on solidarity to understand what needs are there to be met, and figuring out how to meet them in grassroots ways. Forming groups, whether on an affinity model or otherwise, is a great example of solarpunk praxis because it embodies the desire to create a future of equity and ecological harmony.

By supporting communities and creating networks of care, we can shift our social fabric into a more resilient tapestry that is focused on regenerative practices, instead of the dominant paradigm of extraction. These networks mimic nature and are better suited to the complexity of human interaction than centralized institutions and extractive funding. Mutual aid groups are local, autonomous, decentralized, and are empowered by the skills and resources of the community. This allows for a building of collective power and lessens the reliance on hierarchical institutions.

What do Mutual Aid Groups look like?

Mutual aid groups can organize around a ton of things. It’s less about the specific affinity or action, and is more about the underlying ideas motivating the action. That focus on solidarity is paramount because it implies a relationship of reciprocity. Charity is not mutual aid precisely because the built-in reliance on philanthropic acts from the privileged can codify relationships of extractors and extracted. If all the participants in the network have ability to contribute, in whatever way they can, that relationship is actively eroding the hierarchical dynamics that necessitates charity in the first place.

Some specific examples of things people could organize around could be food distro, guerrilla gardening, harm reduction, healthcare, and l could go on. The community-led and bespoke nature inherent to these groups leads to greater care in responding to issues, especially for marginalized folks. When the uncentered are denied access to resources, they can provide the resources themselves.

Example: Black Panther Party

One of the most inspiring (albeit flawed) examples of the possibilities of mutual aid comes from the Black Panther Party’s Survival Progams. In the 60s and 70s, the BPP made networks of community-centered programs to provide for Black folks across the US. They did stuff like free breakfasts (which became the inspo for school breakfasts), free clinics, and cop watch patrols.

Like the mutual aid sprouting in the wake of the pandemic, the Survival Programs came from the repression and failure of institutions to meet the needs of Black communities. BPP saw themselves as revolutionaries that could challenge the kyriarchal system by providing free services. It was meant to build collective power and a sense of self-determination.

By working together to provide for one another, Black folks could challenge individualism and competition that perpetuate inequality and environmental degradation. The legacy of the Black Panther Party's Survival Programs lives on in mutual aid groups that operate today. These groups continue to provide free services to communities that are underserved by traditional institutions. They offer a way for communities to build relationships and networks of trust that can create a sense of collective power. Communities, when they work together, can challenge systems of oppression and exploitation and create a more just and sustainable world. Combine this ethos with a grassroots, participatory model, and you could have a movement on your hands.

To wrap up, I want y’all to think about how powerful mutual aid is to create solarpunk futures. It’s a great foundational framework to build everything else around. Every project can center around helping people, while also incorporating them into helping others themselves. We want to move away from a world where we shirk responsibility to professionals and heroes. We can do better than they ever could if we employ collective power.

[laurellynnleake]

"A 2018 Guardian report highlighted how in one small Kansas town, Dollar General used its purchasing power to aggressively price certain items, which created a food desert after driving the local grocery store out of business. Research by the Institute for Self Reliance suggests that dollar stores siphon 30% of sales from local merchants. The strategy creates a vicious cycle in forgotten parts of America. Less jobs, less tax money, and less options for local communities. “It’s a small town,” a shopper told the WSJ in the same 2017 article, “and we don’t have another choice."

So, we now know on a direct statistical level that Dollar General is literally making the Vimes Boots Theory of Economic Unfairness into a part of its core business model.

Sweet jesus…

[fadingsunsjvj]

The Policy Shift That Decimated Local Grocery Stores - Institute for Local Self-Reliance

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Rural towns and poor urban neighborhoods are being devoured by dollar stores

Across America, rural communities and big cities alike are passing ordinances limiting the expansion of dollar stores, which use a mix of illegal predatory tactics, labor abuse, and monopoly consolidation to destroy the few community grocery stores that survived the Walmart plague and turn poor places into food deserts.

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/2023/03/27/walmarts-jackals/#cheater-sizes

"The Dollar Store Invasion," is a new Institute For Local Self Reliance (ILSR) report by Stacy Mitchell, Kennedy Smith and Susan Holmberg. It paints a detailed, infuriating portrait of the dollar store playback, and sets out a roadmap of tactics that work and have been proven in dozens of places, rural and urban:

https://cdn.ilsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/ILSR-Report-The-Dollar-Store-Invasion-2023.pdf

The impact of dollar stores is plainly stated in the introduction: "dollar stores drive grocery stores and other retailers out of business, leave more people without access to fresh food, extract wealth from local economies, sow crime and violence, and further erode the prospects of the communities they target."

This new report builds on ILSR's longstanding and excellent case-studies, augmenting them with the work of academic geographers who are just starting to literally map out the dollar store playbook, identifying the way that a dollar stores will target, say, the last grocery store in a Black neighborhood and literally surround it, like hyenas cornering weakened prey. This tactic is repeated whenever a new grocer opens in the neighborhood: dollar stores "carpet bomb" the surrounding blocks, ensuring that the new store closes as quickly as it opens.

One important observation is the relationship between these precarious neighborhood grocers and Walmart and its other big-box competitors. Deregulation allowed Walmart to ring cities with giant stores that relied on "predatory buying" (wholesale terms that allowed Walmart to sell goods more cheaply than its competitors bought them, and also rendered its suppliers brittle and sickly, and forced down the wages of those suppliers' workers). This was the high cost of low prices: neighborhoods lost their local grocers, and community dollars ceased to circulate in the community, flowing to Walmart and its billionaire owners, who spent it on union busting and political campaigns for far-right causes, including the defunding of public schools.

This is the landscape where the dollar stores took root: a nation already sickened by an apex predator, which left a productive niche for jackals to pick off the weakened survivors. Wall Street loved the look of this: the Private equity giant KKR took over Dollar General in 2007 and went on a acquisition and expansion bonanza. Even after KKR formally divested itself of Dollar General, the company's hit-man Michael M Calbert stayed on the board, rising to chairman.

The dollar store market is a duopoly. Dollar General's rival is Dollar Tree, another gelatinous cube of a company that grew by absorbing many of its competitors, using Wall Street's money. These acquisitions are now notorious for the weaknesses they exposed in antitrust practice. For example, when Dollar Tree bought Family Dollar, growing to 14,000 stores, the FTC waved the merger through on condition that the new business sell off 330 of them. These ineffectual and pointless merger conditions are emblematic of the inadequacy of antitrust as it was practiced from the Reagan administration until the sea-change under Biden, and Dollar Tree/Family Dollar is the poster child for more muscular enforcement.

The duopoly has only grown since then. Today, Dollar General and Dollar Tree have more than 34,000 US outlets - more than Starbucks, #Walmart, McDonalds and Target - combined.

Destroying a community's grocery store rips out its heart. Neighborhoods without decent access to groceries impose a tax on their already-struggling residents, forcing them to spend hours traveling to more affluent places, or living off the highly processed, deceptively priced (more on this later) goods for sale on the dollar store shelves.

Take Cleveland, once served by a small family chain called Dave's Market that had served its communities since the 1920s. Dave's store in the Collinwood neighborhood was targeted by Family Dollar and Dollar General, which opened seven stores within two miles of the Dave's outlet. The dollar stores targeted the only profitable part of Dave's business - the packaged goods (fresh produce is a money-loser, subsidized by packaged good).

The dollar stores used a mix of predatory buying and "cheater sizes" (packaged goods that are 10-20% smaller than those sold in regular outlets, which are not available to other retailers) to sell goods at prices that Dave's couldn't match, driving Dave's out of business.

Typical dollar stores stock no fresh produce or meat. If your only grocer is a dollar store, your only groceries are highly processed, packaged foods, often sold in deceptive single-serving sizes that actually cost more per ounce than the products that the defunct neighborhood grocer once sold.

Dollar stores don't just target existing food deserts - they create them. Dollar stores preferentially target Black and brown neighborhoods with just a single grocer and then they use predatory pricing (subsidizing the cost of goods and selling them at a loss) and predatory buying to force that grocery store under and tip the neighborhood into food desert status.

Dollar stores don't just target Black and brown urban centers; they also go after rural communities. The commonality here is that both places are likely to be served by independent grocers, not chains, and these indies can't afford a pricing war with the Wall Street-backed dollar store duopoly.

As mentioned, the "predatory buying" of dollar stores is illegal - it was outlawed in 1936 under the Robinson-Patman Act, which required wholesalers to offer goods to all merchants on the same terms. 40 years ago, we stopped enforcing those laws, leading the rise and rise of big box stores and the destruction of the American Main Street.

The lawmakers who passed Robinson-Patman knew what they were doing. They were aware of what contemporary economists call "the waterbed effect," where wholesalers cover the losses from their massive discounts to major retailers by hiking prices on smaller stores, making them even less competitive and driving more market consolidation.

When dollar stores invade your town or neighborhood, they don't just destroy the food choices, they also come for neighborhood jobs. Where a community grocer typically employs 12 or more people, Dollar General employs about 8 per store. Those workers are paid less, too: 92% of Dollar General's workers earn less than $15/h, making Dollar General the worst employer of the 66 large service-sector firms.

Dollar stores also lean heavily into the tactic of turning nearly every role at its store into a "management" job, because managers aren't entitled to overtime pay. That's how you can be the "manger" of a dollar store and take home $40,000 a year while working more than 40 hours every single week.

Understaffing stores turns them into crime magnets. Shootings at dollar stores are routine. Between 2014-21, 485 people were shot at dollar stores - 156 of them died. Understaffed warehouses are vermin magnets. In the Eastern District of Arkansas, Family Dollar was subpoenaed after a rat infestation at its distribution centers that contaminated the food, medicines and cosmetics at 400 stores.

The ILSR doesn't just document the collapse of American communities - it fights back, so this report ends with a lengthy section on proven tactics and future directions for repelling the dollar store invasion. Since 2019, 75 communities have blocked proposals for new dollar stores - more than 50 of those cases happened in 2021/22.

54 towns, from Birmingham, AB to Fort Worth, TX to  Kansas City, KS, have passed laws to "sharply restrict new dollar stores, typically by barring them from opening within one to two miles of an existing dollar store."

To build on this momentum, the authors call for a "reinvigoration of antitrust laws," especially the Robinson-Patman Act. Banning predatory buying would go far to creating a level playing field for independent grocers hoping to fight off a dollar store infestation.

Further, we need the FTC and Department of Justice Antitrust Divition to block mergers between dollar-store chains and unwind the anticompetitve mergers that were negligently waved through under previous administrations (thankfully, top enforcers like Jonathan Kantor and Lina Khan are on top of this!).

We need to free up capital for community banks that will back community grocers. That means rolling back the bank deregulation of the 1980s/90s that allowed for bank consolidation and preferential treatment for large corporations, while reducing lending to small businesses and destroying regional banks. Congress should cap the market share any bank can hold, break up the biggest banks, and require banks to preference loans for community businesses. We also need to end private equity and Wall Street's rollup bonanza.

All of that sounds like a tall order - and it is! But the good news is that it's not just groceries at stake here. Every kind of community business, from pet groomers to hairdressers to funeral homes, falls into the antitrust "Twilight Zone," of acquisitions under $101m. With 60% of Boomer-owned businesses expected to sell in the coming decade, 2.9m businesses employing 32m American workers are slated to be gobbled up by private equity:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/12/16/schumpeterian-terrorism/#deliberately-broken

Whether you're burying a loved one, getting dialysis, getting your cat fixed or having your dog's nails trimmed, you are already likely to be patronizing a business that has been captured by private equity, where the service is worse, the prices are higher and the workers earn less for harder jobs. Everyone has a stake in financial regulation. We are all in this fight, except for the eminently guillotineable PE barons, and you know, fuck those guys

At the state level, the authors propose new muscular enforcement regimes and new laws to protect small businesses from unfair competition. They also call on states to increase the power of local governments to reject new dollar store applications, amending land use guidelines to require "cultivating net economic growth, ensuring that everyone has access to healthy food, and protecting environmental resources.

If all of this has you as fired up as it got me this morning, check out ILSR's "How to Stop Dollar Stores in Your Community" resources:

http://ilsr.org/dollar-stores

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.

Image: Mike McBey (modified) https://www.flickr.com/photos/158652122@N02/38893547595/

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

[Image ID: A ghost town; it is towered over by a haunted castle with a Dollar General sign on it, with the shadow of Count Orlock cast over its tower. One of its turrets is being struck by lightning.]

[indianbiogas]

The Benefits of Biogas in Kerala: A Sustainable Energy Revolution

Kerala, known for its lush greenery and eco-conscious initiatives, is rapidly embracing biogas as a sustainable energy solution. With an increasing focus on renewable energy, biogas in Kerala has gained traction as an eco-friendly alternative to conventional fuels. This article explores the numerous benefits of biogas and how it contributes to a greener and more energy-efficient Kerala.

1. Environmental Benefits

One of the primary advantages of biogas is its ability to reduce environmental pollution. Organic waste, such as food scraps, agricultural residues, and animal manure, is converted into biogas, significantly reducing landfill waste and methane emissions. Unlike fossil fuels, biogas combustion produces minimal carbon emissions, making it a cleaner energy source.

2. Waste Management Solution

Biogas plants play a crucial role in effective waste management. Kerala, with its dense population and high organic waste generation, benefits greatly from biogas technology. By processing biodegradable waste into biogas, communities can manage waste more efficiently while generating valuable energy.

3. Renewable Energy Source

Unlike non-renewable fossil fuels, biogas is a sustainable and renewable energy source. The production of biogas in Kerala ensures a steady supply of clean energy for households, businesses, and industries, reducing dependence on depleting fossil fuel reserves.

4. Economic Benefits

Biogas production offers significant economic advantages. Households and businesses can lower energy costs by utilizing biogas for cooking, heating, and electricity generation. Moreover, small-scale biogas plants create job opportunities in rural and urban areas, contributing to Kerala’s economic growth.

5. Agricultural Benefits

The byproduct of biogas production, known as digestate, serves as a nutrient-rich organic fertilizer. Farmers in Kerala can use this natural fertilizer to improve soil health and boost crop yields, reducing reliance on chemical fertilizers and promoting sustainable agriculture.

6. Energy Independence

With rising fuel prices and increasing energy demands, Kerala aims to achieve greater energy independence. Biogas reduces the reliance on imported fuels and promotes localized energy production, ensuring a more self-sufficient energy future for the state.

7. Government Initiatives and Support

The Kerala government actively promotes biogas adoption through various subsidies and incentives. Initiatives like decentralized biogas plants, community-based projects, and financial aid for installation encourage widespread adoption across households, institutions, and industries.

Conclusion

The adoption of biogas in Kerala marks a significant step toward sustainability, energy efficiency, and waste management. With its environmental, economic, and agricultural benefits, biogas is transforming Kerala into a model state for renewable energy solutions. By embracing biogas technology, individuals and businesses can contribute to a cleaner, greener, and more self-reliant future.

[news365timesindia]

[ad_1] Safex Chemicals India Ltd., a pioneer in the chemical industry, has been awarded the Outstanding Innovation: Chemical Synthesis Award at the 6th Pesticides Manufacturers & Formulators Association of India (PMFAI) Annual AgChem Awards 2025. This prestigious accolade was presented during a grand ceremony in Dubai, recognizing Safex Group’s groundbreaking development of Renofluthrin, a next-generation mosquito control solution.   Safex Chemicals PMFAI-SML AgChem Awards 2025 The award celebrates Renofluthrin as a transformative innovation that underscores Safex Groups’ commitment to indigenous research, sustainability, and global competitiveness. Renofluthrin is a synthetic pyrethroid molecule designed to tackle the growing challenge of mosquito-borne diseases in tropical regions like India. This innovative product, developed entirely in-house, stands out for its unparalleled effectiveness and versatility across multiple application formats, including the world’s first patented Agarbatti format. “Renofluthrin’s journey was not without challenges as one of the first Indian companies to register a homegrown research molecule locally. Our determination and belief in the molecule’s potential led to a product that is now poised for international success, with global registrations currently underway,” said Mr. Neeraj Jindal, Managing Director, Safex Chemicals. Shogun Organics, a subsidiary of Safex Group initiated the Renofluthrin project a decade ago, driven by the vision of self-reliance and the need to address the global mosquito control challenges. The molecule’s development involved a meticulous research process, led by an expert team specializing in chemistry, entomology, and toxicology. Collaborating with leading research institutes and adhering to stringent regulatory requirements, the team successfully brought Renofluthrin to market as a highly effective, safe, and adaptable solution.   About Safex Chemicals Founded in 1991, Safex Chemicals Group has established itself as a fast-growing force in the chemical industry. Over the past five years, the company has shown impressive growth, with a revenue CAGR exceeding 25%.   In October 2022, Safex Chemicals took a significant step in its international expansion by acquiring Briar Chemicals, a leading agrochemicals Contract Development and Manufacturing Organisation (CDMO) in the UK. Safex Chemicals operates seven manufacturing units across India and the UK, proving its strong production capabilities. This growth reflects Safex Chemicals' successful expansion across India and beyond, positioning itself firmly within the global value chain. !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s) if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function()n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments); if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n;n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0'; n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)(window,document,'script', 'https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '311356416665414'); fbq('track', 'PageView'); [ad_2] Source link

[news365times]

[ad_1] Safex Chemicals India Ltd., a pioneer in the chemical industry, has been awarded the Outstanding Innovation: Chemical Synthesis Award at the 6th Pesticides Manufacturers & Formulators Association of India (PMFAI) Annual AgChem Awards 2025. This prestigious accolade was presented during a grand ceremony in Dubai, recognizing Safex Group’s groundbreaking development of Renofluthrin, a next-generation mosquito control solution.   Safex Chemicals PMFAI-SML AgChem Awards 2025 The award celebrates Renofluthrin as a transformative innovation that underscores Safex Groups’ commitment to indigenous research, sustainability, and global competitiveness. Renofluthrin is a synthetic pyrethroid molecule designed to tackle the growing challenge of mosquito-borne diseases in tropical regions like India. This innovative product, developed entirely in-house, stands out for its unparalleled effectiveness and versatility across multiple application formats, including the world’s first patented Agarbatti format. “Renofluthrin’s journey was not without challenges as one of the first Indian companies to register a homegrown research molecule locally. Our determination and belief in the molecule’s potential led to a product that is now poised for international success, with global registrations currently underway,” said Mr. Neeraj Jindal, Managing Director, Safex Chemicals. Shogun Organics, a subsidiary of Safex Group initiated the Renofluthrin project a decade ago, driven by the vision of self-reliance and the need to address the global mosquito control challenges. The molecule’s development involved a meticulous research process, led by an expert team specializing in chemistry, entomology, and toxicology. Collaborating with leading research institutes and adhering to stringent regulatory requirements, the team successfully brought Renofluthrin to market as a highly effective, safe, and adaptable solution.   About Safex Chemicals Founded in 1991, Safex Chemicals Group has established itself as a fast-growing force in the chemical industry. Over the past five years, the company has shown impressive growth, with a revenue CAGR exceeding 25%.   In October 2022, Safex Chemicals took a significant step in its international expansion by acquiring Briar Chemicals, a leading agrochemicals Contract Development and Manufacturing Organisation (CDMO) in the UK. Safex Chemicals operates seven manufacturing units across India and the UK, proving its strong production capabilities. This growth reflects Safex Chemicals' successful expansion across India and beyond, positioning itself firmly within the global value chain. !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s) if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function()n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments); if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n;n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0'; n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)(window,document,'script', 'https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '311356416665414'); fbq('track', 'PageView'); [ad_2] Source link

[mariacallous]

It was quirk of Russia’s war in Ukraine: For nearly three years after Russian President Vladimir Putin’s full-scale invasion, Kyiv continued to permit Russian gas to transit Ukraine via pipeline to reach consumers in Europe who still depended on it. From Kyiv’s perspective, the goal was to sustain Western support for Ukraine’s self-defense while giving Western consumers time to transition to other sources.

Europe benefited from access to Russian gas, and Russia benefited from gas sales to Europe, thus funding its war effort. All the while, Russia still paid transit fees to Ukraine, even as it sought to utterly destroy the country.

In early 2024, however, Ukraine announced that it would end these Russian gas transits when the transit agreement expired, giving European consumers time to adjust while cutting off this source of Russian revenue. As of Jan. 1, 2025, these transits were indeed terminated.

Given adequate time to prepare, Western Europe successfully put in place other means of access to energy without reliance on such transits.

The Republic of Moldova, however, faces a particularly difficult challenge.

For years, Russia had provided free natural gas through the same trans-Ukrainian pipelines to the breakaway Moldovan region of Transnistria, a narrow, landlocked sliver of land with a small number of active Russian military, intelligence and special forces officers and a total population of less than 400,000. Transnistria has Slavic roots and historical ties to Moscow, but it also possesses local and economic interests of its own.

The free gas provided by Russia to Transnistria was used by the local population directly for heat and other consumption as well as to generate electricity, which was then sold to the rest of Moldova.

This arrangement generated operating revenue for the separatist administration. It also fueled an addiction to cheap, Russian-sourced energy throughout the entire country. (Russia’s provision of cheap gas in this way is reminiscent of its energy policies toward Germany during the tenure of Chancellor Angela Merkel, at which time Moscow deliberately supplied cheap gas to Germany in order to cultivate a German interest in avoiding confrontation with Russia.)

Now that Ukraine has shut off the transits, gas is no longer flowing from Russia to Transnistria via the Ukrainian pipelines. This means that gas must arrive in Moldova by different routes—for example, through the TurkStream pipeline, or via liquified natural gas imports through the Greek port of Alexandroupolis, which would then transit through Bulgaria and Romania.

In the long term, Russian gas can be zeroed out. But in the short term, this situation gives Russia significant pressure points on Moldova as the country grapples with shortages of electricity, higher energy costs, and rolling blackouts. Public discontent is coming in the middle of winter—and crucially, before parliamentary elections that are due to be held later this year.

Moldova is neither financially nor structurally capable of replacing all Russian gas and Russian gas-generated electricity until 2026. As Prime Minister Recean told me in December, 2024, Moldova’s new electricity interconnectors with the European Union will not be fully operational until 2026. While Russia may seek to provide gas to Moldova via another route—for instance, through the TurkStream pipeline—it will charge Moldova for any gas beyond Transnistria’s immediate needs, thereby creating an immediate spike in the costs of electricity generation for Moldovan demand.

Whether the higher costs of electricity will be passed on to consumers immediately or subsidized by the government—or possibly with support from the European Union or international financial institutions—is yet to be clarified. Some tariffs have already been increased, but not to market levels.

From a sustainable economic perspective, it is only right that Moldova’s electricity costs rise to market levels. But from a strategic perspective, introducing such a steep increase immediately ahead of national elections could spark public outrage against the pro-Western government, and thus help usher in a pro-Russian government in its place. At least, this is what Moscow is counting on. This is why the EU, United States, and international financial institutions must act.

The only bright spot in this series of unfolding events is the decision by the largest private energy company in Ukraine, DTEK, to import U.S. liquified natural gas to Ukraine through the Greece-Bulgaria-Romania pipeline, thus providing access for Moldova as well. (DTEK has the ability to provide gas, coal, and electricity, depending on Moldova’s capacity and needs.)

This opens the door to a non-Russian source of gas for Moldova, although it will come at a higher price. Here, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development in particular could step in with financing for such deals to help Moldova through this delicate transition in 2025. The objective should be to facilitate the country’s transition away from Russian gas altogether without passing on all of the short-term transition costs to Moldovan households in the middle of an election year.

Helping Moldova through this transition is a good example of the alignment of U.S., EU, and Ukrainian interests. Under its current pro-Western government, Moldova and Ukraine have worked together to ensure that the Russian forces in Transnistria do not open a new, western front in Russia’s war against Ukraine.

With the closing of border stations between Transnistria and Ukraine, trade and transit were forced through mainstream Moldova. This greater isolation of Transnistria has reinforced the ties of this breakaway region with the heart of Moldova while weakening Russia’s influence. If the current Moldovan government were replaced with a pro-Russian government, it could work to undermine western Ukraine using Russian bases in Transnistria.

Historically, Moldova has flip-flopped between pro-Western and pro-Russian governments. The pro-Russia sentiment, where it exists, is based on a variety of factors, including pro-Russian Moldovan oligarchs, local Slavik populations, a love-hate relationship with Romania (with which Moldova has historical and linguistic ties), and relative poverty in Moldova compared to Romania and the European Union more broadly.

Pro-Western President Maia Sandu, who served briefly as prime minister in 2019, was elected president in 2020. Following her election, her Party of Action and Solidarity (PAS) then won national parliamentary elections in 2021 and has since formed a stable government. Sandu won reelection in October 2024, and a simultaneous referendum cemented the country’s aspirations to join the European Union.

But even this election victory was tenuous. A majority of voters living inside Moldova voted for her pro-Russian opponent: it was diaspora voters in Europe and the United States who gave Sandu the votes needed to win overall.

Looking ahead to Moldova’s parliamentary elections, expected by September 2025, Russia is actively funding a handful of political parties that aim to topple Moldova’s pro-Western government. These include a socialist party tied to Sandu’s predecessor as president, Igor Dodon, as well as other parties backed by Moscow through exiled Moldovan oligarch Daniel Shor. Both are mounting an aggressive challenge to the PAS government, and energy disruptions and spiking prices could easily play into their hands.

Moscow is calculating that the economic hardships of high electricity prices and rolling blackouts will cause voters to blame Sandu and Prime Minister Dorin Recean, shifting votes instead to parties that are perceived as being capable of cutting a deal with Russia.

If this strategy succeeds, Moscow’s proxies in Moldova could gain a majority in parliament, and Moldova could flip from being an ally of the West and Ukraine in defending against Russian aggression to an entity doing Russia’s bidding right on Ukraine’s western border. This would be a disaster not only for Moldova, but for Ukraine as well.

Regardless of the mechanisms used, the West and Ukraine together have a vital interest in assisting Moldova through this energy transition with minimal political cost for the Moldovan government. In the short term, the cutoff of free Russian gas is a crisis that Russia seeks to exploit. In the medium to long term, however, the cutoff and its replacement with Western sources is an opportunity: not just to diminish Russian influence over the country, but also to reunite the economic and political interests of Transnistria and the rest of Moldova, and to facilitate Moldova’s entry into the European Union and NATO.

To favor such a positive turn of events, the United States and EU should move quickly to accelerate the building of alternative gas and electricity links to Moldova, to provide financing that allows Moldova to phase in higher consumer energy prices more slowly, and to work with private sector actors who have the immediate means to address Moldova’s energy needs. All three must come together in a coherent strategy that will advance the West’s overall strategic interests for years to come.

[wellspringacademy]

7 Advantages of Enrolling in a Residential School in Bangalore

Bangalore, often referred to as the Silicon Valley of India, is not just a hub for technology and innovation but also a city that boasts some of the best educational institutions in the country. Among these, residential schools in Bangalore stand out as premier choices for parents seeking holistic development for their children. Particularly, the best schools in Sarjapur, Bangalore, offer unparalleled advantages that make them highly sought after by local and international families. Let us explore the seven key benefits of enrolling your child in a residential school in this vibrant city.

1. Holistic Education Approach

Residential schools in Bangalore are renowned for their holistic education approach, focusing on academics, extracurricular activities, and life skills. Institutions in areas like Sarjapur emphasize all-round development, ensuring students grow intellectually, emotionally, and socially. By offering diverse programs that integrate arts, sports, and technology, these schools prepare students for real-world challenges.

2. Highly Qualified Faculty

One of the significant advantages of residential schools in Bangalore is the presence of highly qualified and experienced faculty. Teachers in the best schools in Sarjapur, Bangalore, are not just subject matter experts but also mentors who guide students in their academic and personal journeys. The teacher-student ratio in these schools is often optimized to ensure individual attention and tailored support.

3. World-Class Infrastructure

Residential schools in Bangalore are equipped with world-class infrastructure designed to cater to the diverse needs of students. From state-of-the-art classrooms and well-stocked libraries to advanced sports facilities and science labs, these schools provide an environment conducive to learning and growth. The best schools in Sarjapur, Bangalore, particularly offer cutting-edge amenities, making them ideal for nurturing young minds.

4. Exposure to Multicultural Environments

Bangalore, being a cosmopolitan city, attracts students from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Residential schools in Bangalore create a multicultural environment where students learn to appreciate diversity and develop global perspectives. This exposure is especially beneficial in the best schools in Sarjapur, Bangalore, which often have students from across the globe, fostering cross-cultural understanding and collaboration.

5. Focus on Discipline and Independence

Residential schools are known for instilling discipline and independence in students. The structured routines and well-planned schedules in these schools help children develop time management and organizational skills. Living away from home teaches them responsibility and self-reliance, qualities that are essential for personal and professional success.

6. Personalized Attention and Guidance

With smaller class sizes and a close-knit community, residential schools in Bangalore ensure personalized attention for every student. Teachers and counselors work closely with students to identify their strengths and areas for improvement, offering guidance tailored to their needs. The best schools in Sarjapur, Bangalore, go the extra mile by providing mentorship programs and career counseling to help students achieve their goals.

7. Emphasis on Health and Well-Being

Residential schools in Bangalore prioritize the physical and mental well-being of students. From nutritious meals and regular health check-ups to counseling services and recreational activities, these schools create a supportive environment where children thrive. The lush green campuses of the best schools in Sarjapur, Bangalore, further contribute to a healthy and stress-free lifestyle.

Conclusion

Enrolling your child in a residential school in Bangalore, especially one located in Sarjapur, is a decision that can significantly impact their future. These schools offer a perfect blend of academic excellence, extracurricular opportunities, and character development, ensuring that students are well-prepared to excel in all aspects of life. With world-class facilities, a multicultural environment, and a strong focus on holistic growth, residential schools in Bangalore truly stand out as exceptional educational institutions. If you are searching for the best educational experience for your child, consider the best schools in Sarjapur Bangalore—a choice that promises a bright and successful future.