#public services inefficiency

[insightfultake]

Middle-Class India: Stuck Between Subsidies and Taxes

India’s middle class continues to bear the brunt of the nation’s economic policies, finding itself trapped between heavy taxation and inadequate public services. With fewer than 5% of the population paying income tax and an even smaller fraction contributing a meaningful portion, the government relies heavily on this demographic to finance its plans. In the 2023–24 fiscal year, personal income taxes accounted for 19% of India’s ₹45 trillion budget. Yet, despite their significant contributions, middle-class taxpayers see little relief, with expectations of meaningful tax cuts remaining unmet year after year. Expand

[probablyasocialecologist]

Degrowth scholarship notes that capitalist growth depends on the creation of artificial scarcity. Human needs can typically be satisfied either by means of relatively resource-efficient, non-commodified need satisfiers (for instance, public transit; food from a community kitchen), or by means of relatively scarce and resource-inefficient commodities (a privately owned car; a meal from a home-delivery service). Under capitalism, essential goods (housing, healthcare, transit, nutritious food, etc.) are commodified and access is mediated by prices that are often very high. To obtain the necessary income people are compelled to enter the capitalist labour market, working to produce things that may not be needed simply to access things that clearly are needed. Artificial scarcity of essential goods thus ensures a steady flow of labour for capitalist growth. It also creates growth dependencies: if productivity improvements (or recessions) lead to unemployment, people suffer loss of access to essential goods and growth is needed to create new jobs and resolve the social crisis. This dynamic explains why, despite capitalism's high levels of production and resource use, many basic needs remain unmet even in high-income countries. In this respect, capitalism is deeply inefficient and wasteful.

How to pay for saving the world: Modern Monetary Theory for a degrowth transition

[losingtothejellybeans]

Felt this was the best episode in ages and seemed like a return to form!

Balance between medical stories with a touch of realism and NH. Less superfluous Buckle or Turner scenes and “plot”.

I think little baby June has served as a reminder that although medical advances existed and the family were “comfortable”- people still said (and do today) that they cannot cope.

Rosalind, seems to be hinting that she wants motherhood and (presumably) marriage. Maybe a hint that although Cyril has been on her mind and she’s wistful she won’t pine after him forever? I wonder if Cyril will come back or not, half think he’s going to come back at the end saying he’s separated other half of me thinks based on how characters get on a bus in CTM that he’s said his goodbyes and that’s it, there will be a single scene with a mention about renting out his flat, maybe a letter to Phyllis from Lucille to say her life now feels complete with Cyril staying and their home…

Joyce, I’m glad to hear she got to do some extra training. It would be nice for her to have a storyline of her own unless she’s supposed to be like sister Veronica (and honestly what all the nuns have become, vehicles for a plot/stand ins for the audience rather than getting their own standalone personal interest storylines). Perhaps something in the future about her career ambitions?

Trixie producing a decent evidence based report rather than the scene from an earlier series where her argument was essentially “you’re missing the human names and story” was great. It also better acknowledges the reality of the situation (nuns meet a need and cover a funding gap) . I don’t know if it’s intentional but I don’t dislike the subtle undertones of public services being inefficient vs fabulous benefactors and volunteers…a bit too Big Society for my tastes…..I think a future where Trixie takes on a non clinical role but still a nurse would be interesting and be a better fit for where she’s evolved to.

Excited to see new nun/postulant and what her arrival might bring. I’m curious to see what her calling story might be, especially if she joined late 60s/1970. I’ve always hoped they would do a closeted nun angle, with a woman from a deeply religious family and her own strong faith, with joining an order allowing her security away from marriage etc but also privately confident in who she is, perhaps pushing for tolerance and acceptance without being out.

Do we just assume Nancy got married off screen and is settled??

[rjzimmerman]

How to Repair the Planet? One Answer Might Be Hiding in Plain Sight. (New York Times)

Yes, yes and another triple yes to this premise of this article: we can address the various global crises facing us by looking at them "holistically" rather than as separate silos. I've been harping on this since I started this blog: deal with the "traditional" environmental issues, such as the collapse of biodiversity, properly, and simultaneously we might also be dealing with the newer and evolving climate crisis issues. All part of one, instead of separate kingdoms that benefit academia rather than the rest of us.

Excerpt from this New York Times story:

Sometimes, human needs can make problems like climate change and biodiversity collapse seem insurmountable. The world still relies on fossil fuels that are dangerously heating the planet. People need to eat, but agriculture is a top driver of biodiversity loss.

But what if we’re looking at those problems the wrong way? What if we tackled them as a whole, instead of individually?

A landmark assessment, commissioned by 147 countries and made public on Tuesday, offers the most comprehensive answer to date, examining the sometimes dizzying interconnections among biodiversity, climate change, food, water and health.

“Our current approaches to dealing with these crises have tended to be fragmented or siloed,” said Paula Harrison, a co-chair of the assessment and an environmental scientist who focuses on land and water modeling at the UK Center for Ecology & Hydrology, a research organization. “That’s led to inefficiencies and has often been counterproductive.”

The report, by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, an independent panel that advises governments on biodiversity issues, focuses heavily on solutions. It includes scores of potential interventions along with their cascading effects. For example, the authors note that efforts like incorporating prairie strips, areas of native vegetation amid crop rows, or strategically locating trees on farmland can help with biodiversity, food production, human well-being, water quality and climate change all at once.

Not all situations will have multiple wins. Often, negative consequences are unavoidable. But people should be aware of the trade-offs and make them deliberately, from national governments all the way to local communities, the authors said.

“Right now, we don’t take account of a lot of the trade-offs,” said Pamela McElwee, also a co-chair of the assessment and a professor of human ecology at Rutgers University. “And so, they get passed on to somebody else.”

Overlooked costs to biodiversity, climate, water and health from the fossil fuel, agriculture and fisheries sectors were estimated at $10 trillion to $25 trillion per year. Negative health consequences were especially costly, Dr. McElwee said. For instance, she pointed to the nine million people a year who die from air pollution, and the rise in obesity and diabetes because of unhealthy diets that also harm biodiversity and contribute to climate change.

[butch-snorlax]

Postal service and the bus servic3 need whipping harder I swear to God. Inefficient failures all the way through. Filling to deliver public service should be considered a crime against the state and have you flogged

[mariacallous]

President-elect Trump has suggested that he will impose a wide-range of tariffs when he takes office, including a blanket tariff of 10–20% on all imported goods, an additional tariff between 60 and 100% on Chinese goods, a 100% tariff on countries within the BRICS alliance if they attempt to undermine the U.S. dollar’s status as a global reserve currency, and a 25% tariff on all products imported from Mexico and Canada. Notably, he wants to impose at least some of these tariffs on day one. Can he impose tariffs that quickly? Potentially, yes.

The executive branch has an unusually broad menu of options when it comes to tariffs—the president is able to dictate tariff rates, which countries and goods they apply to, and when and how to impose them without Congressional approval and sometimes without public input or judicial review. We can’t think of another economic policy issue where the executive has so much power and escapes the checks and balances that apply elsewhere to executive branch actions. This is a choice made by the U.S. Congress. 

To be clear, we—like most economists—have a dim view of unilateral tariffs. Tariffs increase the cost of consumption for domestic consumers, and they inefficiently shift economic activity towards sectors where production is more expensive. Moreover, tariffs often provoke retaliation from our trading partners and escalate into trade wars. Putting the economic issues aside, the proposed tariffs by the president-elect raise procedural and institutional questions about whether and how the executive branch should have the authority to unilaterally impose tariffs, and how quickly it can act. 

The power to impose taxes, including tariffs, unequivocally resides with Congress according to the U.S. Constitution. This authority is essential for funding government operations, such as national defense, public services, and infrastructure. The development of tax legislation—jointly managed by the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees—is a process that ideally includes careful study and public debate and can take months or even years. This means that the legislative process cannot realistically impose new taxes on day one of a new administration.

Tariffs are unusual in that they are a tax that is not implemented by congressional legislation, and thus circumvent a potentially lengthy and deliberative journey through the House and Senate. Instead, tariffs are imposed by executive branch regulation—but unlike most federal regulations, tariffs avoid almost all the legislated guardrails, administrative procedures, and judicial reviews that apply to other executive regulations. This means implementing new tariffs can proceed much more quickly than other significant regulatory actions implemented by the executive branch. How fast depends on which authority Trump chooses to invoke. 

The executive branch has the authority to impose tariffs through two different processes. First, a series of Trade Acts—enacted between the 1930s and 1970s—empower the executive branch to proclaim tariff rates to protect American workers and consumers from unfair trade practices. This is the authority that empowered President Trump to impose limited tariffs on products like solar panels and washing machines during his first administration. To invoke this authority, an investigation is initiated by either the Department of Commerce or the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to determine whether tariffs are necessary to remedy unfair trade practices. These investigations take some minimal time—including a 30-60 day notice-and-comment period that allows the public an opportunity to raise concerns—meaning that these authorities cannot realistically be used to impose new tariffs on trading partners on day one.

Instead, if President Trump wishes to impose tariffs more quickly, he will likely need to invoke the authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977. Under the IEEA, Congress grants authority to the executive branch to address “unusual and extraordinary” peacetime threats to national security, foreign policy, or the economy. In May, 2019, President Trump threatened to use the IEEPA to implement  escalating tariffs on Mexican imports in May 2019. He withdrew this threat after Mexico committed to specific measures aimed at curbing immigration. 

Unlike tariffs enacted under the various trade acts, those imposed under the IEEPA bypass departmental reports, reviews, and public notice-and-comment periods. This streamlines implementation but bypasses essentially all regulatory checks and balances. The IEEPA’s speed makes it a likely tool for imposing new tariffs on day one. However, this path also raises legal questions, as seen in 2019, when skepticism emerged over its appropriateness for tariffs on Mexican imports. These criticisms are likely to resurface if the IEEPA is again invoked to justify now-broader tariffs on Mexican and Canadian imports. 

To restore the balance of power, Congress could consider reforms to restore oversight and accountability in trade policy. In a new research brief, we trace the evolution of executive authority in determining tariff rates, highlighting how this authority bypasses the rigorous process that is already in place to provide a check on executive authority to impose other regulations, and we outline what options are on the table to restore oversight. While several bipartisan legislative efforts to address this imbalance have surfaced, they have gained little traction. Without meaningful reform, unchecked tariff authority has the potential to destabilize economic and diplomatic relationships. As the threat of sweeping, unilateral tariffs looms, the need for a more balanced and accountable system has never been more urgent.

[jackalgirl]

Watch Out for Charity Scammers

I strongly recommend that people are very careful with public appeals for money, especially now that we're starting to see new appeals for victims of the wildfires in & around Los Angeles, California.

I know that gofundme is a thing, and I know that real people are affected by wildfires, but when the scammers start to realize that people are helping victims of the wildfires, we are going to see a TON of new accounts appealing for money and they won't be people who are actually impacted by the wildfires, and your money won't be helping victims -- instead, you'll be helping scammers take potential resources away from victims.

If you want to help, but are not sure what's real, please look into some genuine charities that are working in affected areas. Charity Navigator (https://www.charitynavigator.org/) is a good source for information about charities, and can help you identify which ones are putting the majority of their donations to work in the field (as opposed to the ones that are using your donations to hire marketers to get more donations, or otherwise perhaps inefficiently making use of donations to pay for their overhead, with less of it actually making an impact. It's pretty USA-centric, but I think that folks anywhere could use this as a useful resource.

Here is a list of charities working in response to the LA fires: https://www.charitynavigator.org/discover-charities/where-to-give/palisades-fire-2025/

There isn't a list there specifically for the war in Gaza, but there is one for humanitarian response: https://www.charitynavigator.org/discover-charities/best-charities/humanitarian-relief-charities/

Using a list/service like this might seem like a lot of work, and it might seem easier and more impactful to just give directly to someone who's in need. If you know for a fact that that person is who they say they are, then I would not discourage you from this. But I've been seeing a lot of what appear to be fake accounts "vetting" campaigns for one another, so I would encourage you to consider taking a little extra time if you are so moved, and want to make sure your donation has some actual impact where you want it to have impact.

[internal-dreamer]

it's the full balls to the wall commitment to punching down and blaming those that have no capacity to do anything to change anything and dick riding the people that actually could that really fucking gets me. and that if I even phrase a single word in an accusatory manner you fucking flip out and start personal attacks and falling back on the "well you're just being intellectually elitist bc you're talking about things I don't know" and why don't you know these things? is it because you actively ignore them because it's hard? it's too hard to think for yourself? you're asking me who I'm talking to and getting my views from, who the fuck are you talking to you stupid fucking capitalist???? more capitalists??? why are you part of the people triggered (their words) by "tax the rich"??? you're not even a fucking millionaire,, you're not rich you're just a business owner! no critical thinking and all you do is fall for propaganda,, you should be fucking ashamed you dropped out of school clearly you fucking needed it

why the fuck do I even argue with these people. I already know all it does is hurt me! every time I know I should just keep my mouth shut but I just can't fucking help myself can I? what's the fucking point there's no goddamn point all it does is stress me out and upset me. who fucking cares if they're terrible people with terrible opinions I'm out of here tomorrow! why waste my energy??? why can't I just keep my fucking mouth shut

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Steven Greenhouse at The Guardian:

Even as Donald Trump seeks to disavow Project 2025, he and the rightwing effort’s authors have voiced similarly hostile plans for the US’s 2 million-plus federal employees – to replace many of them with political appointees. These plans are stirring alarm among federal employees, with many warning that “politicizing” the civil service will hurt not just them, but also millions of Americans across the US by undermining how well the US government provides services and enforces regulations that protect the public. Speaking about federal employees last month, the former president said: “They’re destroying this country. They’re crooked people, they’re dishonest people. They’re going to be held accountable.” Project 2025, which is backed by the rightwing Heritage Foundation thinktank, has proposed to “dismantle the administrative state”, while Trump’s official “Agenda 47” calls for “cleaning out the Deep State” and “on Day One” issuing an “executive order restoring the president’s authority to fire rogue bureaucrats”. That executive order would set up a system, known as Schedule F, that would revamp the federal bureaucracy so that far more jobs could be filled with political appointees rather than through traditional merit rules. Trump’s supporters say Schedule F would cover about 50,000 federal employees, but unions representing federal workers say it would cover many times that. Currently, approximately 4,000 federal positions are subject to presidential appointment. Trump’s allies are said to have compiled a list of 20,000 loyalists who could quickly move into federal jobs in a new Trump administration.

[...] Bringing back Schedule F would in some ways undermine the Pendleton Act, a landmark federal law that was passed in 1883 to replace the old, derided spoils system with merit hiring that focused on competence and professionalism. The Pendleton Act sought to fix a widely criticized system in which every new president brought in a whole new wave of employees, a system that spurred corruption and inefficiency and compelled workers to focus on pleasing their political bosses rather than serving the public. One factor that helped win passage of the Pendleton Act was that the man who assassinated President James Garfield in 1881 was seething after being turned down for a spoils system position.

Trump’s plans to overhaul civil service rules clash with the findings of what the US public wants, according to public opinion polls. The Partnership for Public Service conducted a poll of 800 adults last March that found that Americans, by 87% to 7%, believe that “having a nonpartisan civil service is important for having a strong American democracy”. (Republicans agreed 87% to 6%.) Ninety-five per cent agreed that “civil servants should be hired and promoted based on their merit, rather than their political beliefs”, while 90% agreed that “civil servants should serve the people more than any individual president”.

Want more proof Agenda 47 and Project 2025 are substantially the same? Both plans push for mass purges of civil service with Schedule F.

[elegantzombielite]

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

Theodore Roosevelt, 26th US President (1858-1919)

[urialnathanonwright]

Trump's Hiring Freeze: A Reckless Blow to California's Firefighting and Federal Services

President Donald Trump’s recent hiring freeze is a glaring example of short-sighted governance that sacrifices critical federal services and public safety for the sake of political theater. California, already grappling with severe wildland fire risks and a growing population, stands to suffer disproportionately under this ill-conceived executive order.

Wildland Firefighting in Peril The timing of Trump’s freeze couldn’t be worse for California’s wildland firefighting efforts. With 35% of federal firefighting positions already vacant due to low pay and limited career opportunities, the freeze exacerbates an existing crisis. The seasonal hiring process for firefighters is complex and time-sensitive. By halting the recruitment of HR officials and hiring managers—those who grease the wheels of this critical system—Trump has effectively sabotaged the federal government’s ability to respond to emergencies.

Wildfires don’t wait for bureaucracy, and neither should the leaders responsible for protecting lives and property. Trump’s blanket freeze undermines the very workforce tasked with defending our communities from natural disasters, jeopardizing the 2025 fire season before it even begins.

Collateral Damage Across Federal Services The harm from Trump’s freeze extends far beyond firefighting. California relies on federal employees for essential services, from staffing national parks to enforcing labor standards, conducting environmental inspections, and supporting veterans. With more than 147,000 federal civilian employees in the state, any disruption in staffing threatens the efficiency and effectiveness of these operations.

This freeze will not improve government efficiency; it will create chaos. Key roles left unfilled will leave federal programs limping along, unable to meet the needs of the public. The impact on California’s national parks, agriculture, and environmental oversight will be particularly severe, undermining efforts to protect the state’s natural resources and public health.

A Thinly Veiled Political Agenda The exemptions in Trump’s freeze reveal his administration’s true priorities. By sparing immigration enforcement and border security roles while freezing positions in environmental regulation and emergency services, Trump is weaponizing federal staffing to serve his divisive agenda. This is not about improving government efficiency—it’s about defunding and dismantling programs that don’t align with his political goals, no matter the cost to public safety or well-being.

A Call for Responsible Leadership This hiring freeze is a reckless and dangerous policy that puts lives, livelihoods, and essential services at risk. California needs strong leadership that prioritizes public safety, environmental stewardship, and the well-being of its residents—not cynical maneuvers that sow chaos and erode trust in government.

President Trump’s approach to governance is not only inefficient but deeply irresponsible. It’s time for leaders in Congress, state governments, and advocacy groups to stand up against these shortsighted policies and demand a federal government that works for all Americans—not just those who align with a narrow political agenda.

[misfitwashere]

December 15, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

DEC 16

Tomorrow, December 16, is the fiftieth anniversary of the Safe Drinking Water Act, signed into law on December 16, 1974, by President Gerald R. Ford, a Republican. The measure required the Environmental Protection Agency to set maximum contaminant levels for drinking water and required states to comply with them. It protected the underground sources of drinking water and called for emergency measures to protect public health if a dangerous contaminant either was in or was likely to enter a public water system.

To conduct research on clean drinking water and provide grants for states to clean up their systems, Congress authorized appropriations of $15 million in 1975, $25 million in 1976, and $35 million in 1977.

The Safe Drinking Water Act was one of the many laws passed in the 1970s after the environmental movement, sparked after Rachel Carson’s 1962 book Silent Spring explored the effect of toxic chemicals on living organisms, had made Americans aware of the dangers of pollution in the environment. That awareness had turned to anger by 1969, when in January a massive oil spill off Santa Barbara, California, poured between 80,000 and 100,000 barrels of oil into the Pacific, fouling 35 miles of California beaches and killing seabirds, dolphins, sea lions, and elephant seals. Then, in June, the chemical contaminants that had been dumped into Cleveland’s Cuyahoga River caught fire.

The nation had dipped its toes into water regulation during the Progressive Era at the beginning of the twentieth century, after germ theory became widely understood in the 1880s. Cleaning up cities first meant installing sewer systems, then meant trying to stop diseases from spreading through water systems. In 1912, Congress passed the U.S. Public Health Service Act, which established a national agency for protecting public health and called for getting rid of waterborne illnesses—including the life-threatening illness typhoid—by treating water with chlorine.

It was a start, but a new focus on science and technology after World War II pointed toward updating the system. The U.S. Public Health Service investigated the nation’s water supply in the 1960s and discovered more than 46,000 cases of waterborne illness. In the 1970s it found that about 90% of the drinking water systems it surveyed exceeded acceptable levels of microbes.

In February 1970, Republican President Richard M. Nixon sent to Congress a special message “on environmental quality.” “[W]e…have too casually and too long abused our natural environment,” he wrote. “The time has come when we can wait no longer to repair the damage already done, and to establish new criteria to guide us in the future.” He called for “fundamentally new philosophies of land, air and water use, for stricter regulation, for expanded government action, for greater citizen involvement, and for new programs to ensure that government, industry and individuals all are called on to do their share of the job and to pay their share of the cost.”

Later that year, Congress passed a measure establishing the Environmental Protection Agency, and Nixon signed it into law.

Widespread calls to protect drinking water ran up against lobbyists for oil companies and members of Congress from oil districts. They complained that the science of what substances were dangerous was uncertain and that how they would be measured and regulated was unclear. They complained that the EPA was inefficient and expensive and was staffed with inexperienced officials.

Then, in 1972, an EPA study discovered that waters downstream from 60 industries discharging waste from Baton Rouge to the Mississippi River’s mouth in New Orleans had high concentrations of 66 chemicals and toxic metals. Chemical companies had sprung up after World War II along the 85 miles between Baton Rouge and New Orleans, potentially polluting the water, while the lower end of the Mississippi River collected all the runoff from the river itself.

Two years later, an analysis of drinking water and cancer death rates among white men in that same area of Louisiana suggested that carcinogens in the water might be linked to high cancer rates. Louisiana representative Lindy Boggs, a Democrat, told Congress that “it is really vitally important to our region that we have controls enforced on the toxic organic compounds that come into the river from the industrial and municipal discharges, from runoffs from from agricultural regions, from accidents on the river, and from chemical spills on the river.”

Concerns about the area of Louisiana that later came to be known as “Cancer Alley” were uppermost, but there were chemical companies across the country, and Congress set out to safeguard the lives of Americans from toxins released by corporations into the nation’s water supply. The Safe Drinking Water Act, the first law designed to create a comprehensive standard for the nation’s drinking water, was Congress’s answer.

The new law dramatically improved the quality of drinking water in the U.S., making it some of the safest in the world. Over the years, the EPA has expanded the list of contaminants it regulates, limiting both new man-made chemicals and new pathogens.

But the system is under strain: not only have scientific advances discovered that some contaminants are dangerous at much lower concentrations than scientists previously thought, but also a lack of funding for the EPA means that oversight can be lax. Even when it’s not, a lack of funding for towns and cities means they can’t always afford to upgrade their systems.

By 2015, almost 77 million Americans lived in regions whose water systems did not meet the safety standards of the Safe Drinking Water Act. In addition, more than 2 million Americans did not have running water, and many more rely on wells or small systems not covered by the Safe Water Drinking Act.

The Biden administration began to address the problem with an investment of about $22 billion to upgrade the nation’s water systems. The money removed lead pipes, upgraded wastewater and sewage systems, and addressed the removal of so-called forever chemicals and proposed a new standard for acceptable measures of them.

What this will mean in the future is unclear. President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to increase production of oil and gas—although it is currently at an all-time high—and such projects are often slowed by environmental regulations. On Tuesday, December 10, he posted on social media, “Any person or company investing ONE BILLION DOLLARS, OR MORE, in the United States of America, will receive fully expedited approvals and permits, including, but in no way limited to, all Environmental approvals. GET READY TO ROCK!!!”

“[B]y ignoring environmental costs we have given an economic advantage to the careless polluter over his more conscientious rival,” Trump’s Republican predecessor Nixon told the nation in 1970. “While adopting laws prohibiting injury to person or property, we have freely allowed injury to our shared surroundings.” When he signed the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1974, President Ford added simply: “Nothing is more essential to the life of every single American than clean air, pure food, and safe drinking water.”

—

[telaviv-delhi]

Az egyik jelenetben arról kérdezik Piedonét, hogy olasz-e, mire Piedone azt feleli: Nem, nápolyi vagyok. Bud Spencer a valóságban is nápolyinak tekinti magát és anyanyelvének a nápolyi nyelvet tartja, amelyről sokan azt gondolják, csak az olasz nyelv dialektusa. (Piedone Afrikában)

Naples' "ruined" appearance can be attributed to a combination of historical, social, economic, and political factors:

1. Historical Legacy

Naples has a long history of neglect and exploitation, dating back to its role as a regional capital under various rulers who often drained its resources.

Frequent natural disasters, such as earthquakes and the eruption of Mount Vesuvius, have repeatedly devastated the city.

2. Urban Density

The city is densely populated, with narrow streets and aging buildings that are challenging to maintain.

Overcrowding exacerbates wear and tear on infrastructure.

3. Economic Challenges

Persistent poverty and high unemployment have left many areas underfunded and poorly maintained.

Economic disparities between Northern and Southern Italy have historically resulted in fewer investments in Naples.

4. Corruption and Mismanagement

Naples has struggled with organized crime, particularly the Camorra, which siphons resources and undermines legitimate governance.

Corruption in public administration has led to poor urban planning and inadequate public services.

5. Environmental Neglect

Waste management has been a recurring crisis due to inefficiencies and criminal interference. Piles of uncollected garbage have tarnished the city's image.

6. Cultural Preservation vs. Modernization

Naples' historic center is a UNESCO World Heritage Site, which complicates modernization. Preservation efforts often clash with the need for urban renewal.

Despite its challenges, Naples is also celebrated for its resilience, vibrant culture, and rich history. Its "ruined" charm often adds to its authenticity and appeal, captivating visitors with its raw, unpolished beauty.

Italian organized crime groups receipts have been estimated to reach 7–9% of Italy's GDP. A 2009 report identified 610 comuni which have a strong Mafia presence, where 13 million Italians live and 14.6% of the Italian GDP is produced. However, despite the ubiquity of organized crime in much of the country, Italy has only the 47th highest murder rate, at 0.013 per 1,000 people, compared to 61 countries, and the 43rd highest number of rapes per 1,000 people, compared to 64 countries in the world, all relatively low figures among developed countries.

[yourreddancer]

Heather Cox Richardson 12.15.24

Tomorrow, December 16, is the fiftieth anniversary of the Safe Drinking Water Act, signed into law on December 16, 1974, by President Gerald R. Ford, a Republican. The measure required the Environmental Protection Agency to set maximum contaminant levels for drinking water and required states to comply with them. It protected the underground sources of drinking water and called for emergency measures to protect public health if a dangerous contaminant either was in or was likely to enter a public water system.

To conduct research on clean drinking water and provide grants for states to clean up their systems, Congress authorized appropriations of $15 million in 1975, $25 million in 1976, and $35 million in 1977.

The Safe Drinking Water Act was one of the many laws passed in the 1970s after the environmental movement, sparked after Rachel Carson’s 1962 book Silent Spring explored the effect of toxic chemicals on living organisms, had made Americans aware of the dangers of pollution in the environment. 

That awareness had turned to anger by 1969, when in January a massive oil spill off Santa Barbara, California, poured between 80,000 and 100,000 barrels of oil into the Pacific, fouling 35 miles of California beaches and killing seabirds, dolphins, sea lions, and elephant seals. Then, in June, the chemical contaminants that had been dumped into Cleveland’s Cuyahoga River caught fire.

The nation had dipped its toes into water regulation during the Progressive Era at the beginning of the twentieth century, after germ theory became widely understood in the 1880s. Cleaning up cities first meant installing sewer systems, then meant trying to stop diseases from spreading through water systems. In 1912, Congress passed the U.S. Public Health Service Act, which established a national agency for protecting public health and called for getting rid of waterborne illnesses—including the life-threatening illness typhoid—by treating water with chlorine.

It was a start, but a new focus on science and technology after World War II pointed toward updating the system. The U.S. Public Health Service investigated the nation’s water supply in the 1960s and discovered more than 46,000 cases of waterborne illness. In the 1970s it found that about 90% of the drinking water systems it surveyed exceeded acceptable levels of microbes.

In February 1970, Republican President Richard M. Nixon sent to Congress a special message “on environmental quality.” “[W]e…have too casually and too long abused our natural environment,” he wrote. “The time has come when we can wait no longer to repair the damage already done, and to establish new criteria to guide us in the future.” He called for “fundamentally new philosophies of land, air and water use, for stricter regulation, for expanded government action, for greater citizen involvement, and for new programs to ensure that government, industry and individuals all are called on to do their share of the job and to pay their share of the cost.”

Later that year, Congress passed a measure establishing the Environmental Protection Agency, and Nixon signed it into law.

Widespread ater that year, Congress passed a measure establishing the Environmental Protection Agency, and Nixon signed it into law.calls to protect drinking water ran up against lobbyists for oil companies and members of Congress from oil districts. They complained that the science of what substances were dangerous was uncertain and that how they would be measured and regulated was unclear. They complained that the EPA was inefficient and expensive and was staffed with inexperienced officials.

Then, in 1972, an EPA study discovered that waters downstream from 60 industries discharging waste from Baton Rouge to the Mississippi River’s mouth in New Orleans had high concentrations of 66 chemicals and toxic metals. Chemical companies had sprung up after World War II along the 85 miles between Baton Rouge and New Orleans, potentially polluting the water, while the lower end of the Mississippi River collected all the runoff from the river itself.

Two years later, an analysis of drinking water and cancer death rates among white men in that same area of Louisiana suggested that carcinogens in the water might be linked to high cancer rates. Louisiana representative Lindy Boggs, a Democrat, told Congress that “it is really vitally important to our region that we have controls enforced on the toxic organic compounds that come into the river from the industrial and municipal discharges, from runoffs from from agricultural regions, from accidents on the river, and from chemical spills on the river.”

Concerns about the area of Louisiana that later came to be known as “Cancer Alley” were uppermost, but there were chemical companies across the country, and Congress set out to safeguard the lives of Americans from toxins released by corporations into the nation’s water supply. The Safe Drinking Water Act, the first law designed to create a comprehensive standard for the nation’s drinking water, was Congress’s answer.

The new law dramatically improved the quality of drinking water in the U.S., making it some of the safest in the world. Over the years, the EPA has expanded the list of contaminants it regulates, limiting both new man-made chemicals and new pathogens.

But the system is under strain: not only have scientific advances discovered that some contaminants are dangerous at much lower concentrations than scientists previously thought, but also a lack of funding for the EPA means that oversight can be lax. Even when it’s not, a lack of funding for towns and cities means they can’t always afford to upgrade their systems.

By 2015, almost 77 million Americans lived in regions whose water systems did not meet the safety standards of the Safe Drinking Water Act. In addition, more than 2 million Americans did not have running water, and many more rely on wells or small systems not covered by the Safe Water Drinking Act.

The Biden administration began to address the problem with an investment of about $22 billion to upgrade the nation’s water systems. The money removed lead pipes, upgraded wastewater and sewage systems, and addressed the removal of so-called forever chemicals and proposed a new standard for acceptable measures of them.

What this will mean in the future is unclear. President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to increase production of oil and gas—although it is currently at an all-time high—and such projects are often slowed by environmental regulations. On Tuesday, December 10, he posted on social media, “Any person or company investing ONE BILLION DOLLARS, OR MORE, in the United States of America, will receive fully expedited approvals and permits, including, but in no way limited to, all Environmental approvals. GET READY TO ROCK!!!”

“[B]y ignoring environmental costs we have given an economic advantage to the careless polluter over his more conscientious rival,” Trump’s Republican predecessor Nixon told the nation in 1970. “While adopting laws prohibiting injury to person or property, we have freely allowed injury to our shared surroundings.” When he signed the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1974, President Ford added simply: “Nothing is more essential to the life of every single American than clean air, pure food, and safe drinking water.”

—

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

December 15, 2024

Heather Cox Richardson

Dec 15, 2024

Tomorrow, December 16, is the fiftieth anniversary of the Safe Drinking Water Act, signed into law on December 16, 1974, by President Gerald R. Ford, a Republican. The measure required the Environmental Protection Agency to set maximum contaminant levels for drinking water and required states to comply with them. It protected the underground sources of drinking water and called for emergency measures to protect public health if a dangerous contaminant either was in or was likely to enter a public water system.

To conduct research on clean drinking water and provide grants for states to clean up their systems, Congress authorized appropriations of $15 million in 1975, $25 million in 1976, and $35 million in 1977.

The Safe Drinking Water Act was one of the many laws passed in the 1970s after the environmental movement, sparked after Rachel Carson’s 1962 book Silent Spring explored the effect of toxic chemicals on living organisms, had made Americans aware of the dangers of pollution in the environment. That awareness had turned to anger by 1969, when in January a massive oil spill off Santa Barbara, California, poured between 80,000 and 100,000 barrels of oil into the Pacific, fouling 35 miles of California beaches and killing seabirds, dolphins, sea lions, and elephant seals. Then, in June, the chemical contaminants that had been dumped into Cleveland’s Cuyahoga River caught fire.

The nation had dipped its toes into water regulation during the Progressive Era at the beginning of the twentieth century, after germ theory became widely understood in the 1880s. Cleaning up cities first meant installing sewer systems, then meant trying to stop diseases from spreading through water systems. In 1912, Congress passed the U.S. Public Health Service Act, which established a national agency for protecting public health and called for getting rid of waterborne illnesses—including the life-threatening illness typhoid—by treating water with chlorine.

It was a start, but a new focus on science and technology after World War II pointed toward updating the system. The U.S. Public Health Service investigated the nation’s water supply in the 1960s and discovered more than 46,000 cases of waterborne illness. In the 1970s it found that about 90% of the drinking water systems it surveyed exceeded acceptable levels of microbes.

In February 1970, Republican President Richard M. Nixon sent to Congress a special message “on environmental quality.” “[W]e…have too casually and too long abused our natural environment,” he wrote. “The time has come when we can wait no longer to repair the damage already done, and to establish new criteria to guide us in the future.” He called for “fundamentally new philosophies of land, air and water use, for stricter regulation, for expanded government action, for greater citizen involvement, and for new programs to ensure that government, industry and individuals all are called on to do their share of the job and to pay their share of the cost.”

Later that year, Congress passed a measure establishing the Environmental Protection Agency, and Nixon signed it into law.

Widespread calls to protect drinking water ran up against lobbyists for oil companies and members of Congress from oil districts. They complained that the science of what substances were dangerous was uncertain and that how they would be measured and regulated was unclear. They complained that the EPA was inefficient and expensive and was staffed with inexperienced officials.

Then, in 1972, an EPA study discovered that waters downstream from 60 industries discharging waste from Baton Rouge to the Mississippi River’s mouth in New Orleans had high concentrations of 66 chemicals and toxic metals. Chemical companies had sprung up after World War II along the 85 miles between Baton Rouge and New Orleans, potentially polluting the water, while the lower end of the Mississippi River collected all the runoff from the river itself.

Two years later, an analysis of drinking water and cancer death rates among white men in that same area of Louisiana suggested that carcinogens in the water might be linked to high cancer rates. Louisiana representative Lindy Boggs, a Democrat, told Congress that “it is really vitally important to our region that we have controls enforced on the toxic organic compounds that come into the river from the industrial and municipal discharges, from runoffs from from agricultural regions, from accidents on the river, and from chemical spills on the river.”

Concerns about the area of Louisiana that later came to be known as “Cancer Alley” were uppermost, but there were chemical companies across the country, and Congress set out to safeguard the lives of Americans from toxins released by corporations into the nation’s water supply. The Safe Drinking Water Act, the first law designed to create a comprehensive standard for the nation’s drinking water, was Congress’s answer.

The new law dramatically improved the quality of drinking water in the U.S., making it some of the safest in the world. Over the years, the EPA has expanded the list of contaminants it regulates, limiting both new man-made chemicals and new pathogens.

But the system is under strain: not only have scientific advances discovered that some contaminants are dangerous at much lower concentrations than scientists previously thought, but also a lack of funding for the EPA means that oversight can be lax. Even when it’s not, a lack of funding for towns and cities means they can’t always afford to upgrade their systems.

By 2015, almost 77 million Americans lived in regions whose water systems did not meet the safety standards of the Safe Drinking Water Act. In addition, more than 2 million Americans did not have running water, and many more rely on wells or small systems not covered by the Safe Water Drinking Act.

The Biden administration began to address the problem with an investment of about $22 billion to upgrade the nation’s water systems. The money removed lead pipes, upgraded wastewater and sewage systems, and addressed the removal of so-called forever chemicals and proposed a new standard for acceptable measures of them.

What this will mean in the future is unclear. President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to increase production of oil and gas—although it is currently at an all-time high—and such projects are often slowed by environmental regulations. On Tuesday, December 10, he posted on social media, “Any person or company investing ONE BILLION DOLLARS, OR MORE, in the United States of America, will receive fully expedited approvals and permits, including, but in no way limited to, all Environmental approvals. GET READY TO ROCK!!!”

“[B]y ignoring environmental costs we have given an economic advantage to the careless polluter over his more conscientious rival,” Trump’s Republican predecessor Nixon told the nation in 1970. “While adopting laws prohibiting injury to person or property, we have freely allowed injury to our shared surroundings.” When he signed the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1974, President Ford added simply: “Nothing is more essential to the life of every single American than clean air, pure food, and safe drinking water.”

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[darkmaga-returns]

Starting in the early 1930s, the Technocracy movement was obsessed with control over energy. The first two requirements laid down for Technocracy in 1934 were (1) Register on a continuous 24-hour-per-day basis the total net conversion of energy and (2) By means of the registration of energy converted and consumed, make possible a balanced load.” You could easily see this exact wording on your modern energy bill.

As I wrote in Technocracy’s Necessary Requirements,

Conversion of energy means creating useable energy from stored energy like coal, oil or natural gas; when they are burned, electricity is generated. Hydroelectric and nuclear also convert energy. There were two reasons to keep track of useable energy: First, it was the basis for issuing “energy script” to all citizens for buying and selling goods and services. Second, it predicted economic activity because all such activity is directly dependent upon energy. (Note that Technocrats intended to pre-determine how much energy would be made available in the first place.)

Once available energy was quantified, it was to be allocated to consumers and manufacturers so as to limit production and consumption. Technocrats would have control of both ends, so that everything is managed according to their scientific formulas.

The modern Smart Grid, with its ubiquitous WiFi-enabled Smart Meters on homes and businesses, is the exact fulfillment of these two requirements. The concept of “energy web” was first revitalized in 1999 by the Bonneville Power Authority (BPA) in Portland, Oregon. A government agency, BPA had a rich history of Technocrats dating back to its creation in 1937. The “energy web” was renamed Smart Grid in 2009 during the Obama Administration. Note that Smart Grid was a global initiative that intended to blanket the entire world with this new energy control technology.

If America were to face this reality, these Technocrat charlatans would be thrown into the dustbin of history. Unfortunately, policy leaders like Heartland Institute are blind to it. ⁃ Patrick Wood, Editor.

When electric power was a novel idea and just beginning to be adopted in urban centers, the industry had a Wild West feel to it as multiple companies strung wires, opened power plants, and sold electricity on an unregulated market. Competition was fierce, but state and local governments concluded that the inefficiencies and redundancies endangered the public and imposed higher costs.

So states set up service territories with monopolistic or oligopolistic service providers, who were entrusted with providing reliable power and sufficient reserve for peak periods in return for being guaranteed a profit on rates proposed by the utilities but approved or set by newly established state public utility commissions (PUCs). These commissions were charged with ensuring public utilities served the general public universally within their territory, providing reliable service at reasonable rates.

Much has changed since then. Politicians began to supplant engineers to decide, based on self-interested calculations, what types of power should be favored and disfavored, and what types of appliances and modes of transportation Americans could use. As the 21st century dawned, a new consideration entered the picture: Climate change.

Under the banner of combatting global warming, utilities were at first encouraged and then coerced into adopting plans and policies aimed at achieving net zero emissions of carbon dioxide. The aim of providing reliable, affordable power – the rationale for the electric utilities’ monopolies in the first place – was supplanted by a controversial and partisan political goal. Initially, as states began to push renewable energy mandates, utilities fought back, arguing that prematurely closing reliable power plants, primarily coal-fueled, would increase energy costs, compromise grid reliability, and leave them with millions of dollars in stranded assets.

Politicians addressed those concerns with subsidies and tax credits for renewable power. In addition, they passed on the costs of the expanded grid to ratepayers and taxpayers. Effectively, elected officials and the PUCs, with a wink and a nod, indemnified utilities for power supply failures, allowing utilities to claim that aging grid infrastructure and climate change were to blame for failures rather than the increased percentage of intermittent power added to the grid at their direction.

Today, utilities have enthusiastically embraced the push for renewable (but less reliable) resources, primarily wind and solar. PUCs guarantee a high rate of return for all new power source (wind, solar, and battery) installations, which has resulted in the construction of ever more and bigger wind, solar, and battery facilities. The costlier, the more profitable – regardless of their compromised ability to provide reliable power or the cost impact on residential, commercial, and industrial ratepayers.

A new report from The Heartland Institute demonstrates the significant financial incentives from government and financiers for utilities to turn away from affordable energy sources like natural gas and coal, and even nuclear, and instead aggressively pursue wind and solar in particular. All of this is done in the name of pursuing net zero emissions, which every single major utility company in the country boasts about on their corporate reports and websites. Reliability and affordability come secondary to the decarbonization agenda.