#Financial Accelerator Programs

[batboyblog]

Things Biden and the Democrats did, this week #22

June 7-14 2024

Vice-President Harris announced that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is moving to remove medical debt for people's credit score. This move will improve the credit rating of 15 million Americans. Millions of Americans struggling with debt from medical expenses can't get approved for a loan for a car, to start a small business or buy a home. The new rule will improve credit scores by an average of 20 points and lead to 22,000 additional mortgages being approved every year. This comes on top of efforts by the Biden Administration to buy up and forgive medical debt. Through money in the American Rescue Plan $7 billion dollars of medical debt will be forgiven by the end of 2026. To date state and local governments have used ARP funds to buy up and forgive the debt of 3 million Americans and counting.

The EPA, Department of Agriculture, and FDA announced a joint "National Strategy for Reducing Food Loss and Waste and Recycling Organics". The Strategy aimed to cut food waste by 50% by 2030. Currently 24% of municipal solid waste in landfills is food waste, and food waste accounts for 58% of methane emissions from landfills roughly the green house gas emissions of 60 coal-fired power plants every year. This connects to $200 million the EPA already has invested in recycling, the largest investment in recycling by the federal government in 30 years. The average American family loses $1,500 ever year in spoiled food, and the strategy through better labeling, packaging, and education hopes to save people money and reduce hunger as well as the environmental impact.

President Biden signed with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy a ten-year US-Ukraine Security Agreement. The Agreement is aimed at helping Ukraine win the war against Russia, as well as help Ukraine meet the standards it will have to be ready for EU and NATO memberships. President Biden also spearheaded efforts at the G7 meeting to secure $50 billion for Ukraine from the 7 top economic nations.

HHS announced $500 million for the development of new non-injection vaccines against Covid. The money is part of Project NextGen a $5 billion program to accelerate and streamline new Covid vaccines and treatments. The investment announced this week will support a clinical trial of 10,000 people testing a vaccine in pill form. It's also supporting two vaccines administered as nasal sprays that are in earlier stages of development. The government hopes that break throughs in non-needle based vaccines for Covid might be applied to other vaccinations thus making vaccines more widely available and more easily administered.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced $404 million in additional humanitarian assistance for Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank and the region. This brings the total invested by the Biden administration in the Palestinians to $1.8 billion since taking office, over $600 million since the war started in October 2023. The money will focus on safe drinking water, health care, protection, education, shelter, and psychosocial support.

The Department of the Interior announced $142 million for drought resilience and boosting water supplies. The funding will provide about 40,000 acre-feet of annual recycled water, enough to support more than 160,000 people a year. It's funding water recycling programs in California, Hawaii, Kansas, Nevada and Texas. It's also supporting 4 water desalination projects in Southern California. Desalination is proving to be an important tool used by countries with limited freshwater.

President Biden took the lead at the G7 on the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment. The PGI is a global program to connect the developing world to investment in its infrastructure from the G7 nations. So far the US has invested $40 billion into the program with a goal of $200 billion by 2027. The G7 overall plans on $600 billion by 2027. There has been heavy investment in the Lobito Corridor, an economic zone that runs from Angola, through the Democratic Republic of Congo, to Zambia, the PGI has helped connect the 3 nations by rail allowing land locked Zambia and largely landlocked DRC access Angolan ports. The PGI also is investing in a $900 million solar farm in Angola. The PGI got a $5 billion dollar investment from Microsoft aimed at expanding digital access in Kenya, Indonesia, and Malaysia. The PGI's bold vision is to connect Africa and the Indian Ocean region economically through rail and transportation link as well as boost greener economic growth in the developing world and bring developing nations on-line.

[andhumanslovedstories]

Hi Sarah (or Sara? I remember you discussing the h but don't remember which way it's spelled). I hope you're doing well on your break and enjoying September. I have a question - how much schooling did you have to do to become a nurse? I'm considering becoming an elementary school teacher in Norway, which would require me to go back to school for 5 (additional) years. Seems like a long fucking time and i didnt do great the first run tbh. It would be free though. Investment in the future seems like it could pay off, so i guess im looking for inspiration from other ppl who have perhaps made a similar plunge

Hi, anon! I wish I could give you some straight up inspo. Instead, I navel-gazed for a while. Schooling-wise, I already had a (completely unrelated) bachelor's degree so I was able to do an accelerated nursing program after two semesters of community college doing the prereqs. I did struggle in nursing school. College has always been brutal on my mental health and nursing is a hard pivot from my original degree (double major history and english w a concentration in creative writing) (you cannot imagine how many books I read and essays I wrote). It took a little over two years in total.

You don't have to don't have to worry about student debt which is so so wonderful. I didn't have to either, and that's let me be way more adventurous with my life choices. The cost of your education would just ("just") be your time, energy, and the potential money that you could earn by focusing on work instead. I had to stick around in my hometown instead of going traveling with Cyrus. I worked a lot fewer hours than I would if I'd not been in school. I had to miss the live airing of the Jesus Christ Superstar on NBC in order to study for an anatomy test which was genuinely so distressing to me. 2018 was a hell of a year for me. (I aced that test btw. It was such an improvement over my previous test my teacher emailed me a congratulations note with twelve exclamation points.)

All of this while people were constantly talking about how shitty it is to be a nurse and how so many of them leave the field within six months. (Similar to teaching in that way, at least in America.) I was doing work I didn't enjoy for a job I might not stick with. There were a lot of times I resented nursing school for interfering with my life.

I'm still very glad I did it. My degree gave me a lot. On the very practical side, my degree has given me more financial freedom and a much higher earning potential. On the idealistic level, my degree has enabled me to do work that I find meaningful. The work touches a lot of things that I find interesting. My nursing degree has benefited my life, regardless of if I stay in nursing for the rest of my career or move on to something new. I didn't like getting my degree, but I don't regret that I got it.

Maybe it'll go way easier for you, maybe it won't be worth it. When I thought about becoming a nurse, it felt like my life plan clicked into place because it ticked every single need I had for a job. I didn't know if it would work out, but the rewards outweighed the risks. More than that, it was the first plan I had for my future that made me excited. I liked the life I pictured if I was a nurse. I've found that excitement to be rare and precious. If teaching gives you that, I'd strongly consider pursuing it.

Besides, you can always use my last-line defense against school despair: being like "fuck it I'm gonna drop out after this semester" and then keep not doing that. You can bail on stuff! It's rad.

[ericdeggans]

Why you should care about the TV Critics Association Press Tours, even if you are not a TV critic

Back in the day, years ago, it happened with regularity: A snarky story in one of the entertainment industry trade magazines taking a shot at the Television Critics Association’s twice-annual press tours.

Before we go on, a bit of inside baseball for context: the TCA is a group of critics and journalists who cover the TV industry, and two times a year we hold a conference of sorts in Los Angeles. Loads of major TV outlets participate, rolling out press conferences, receptions, set visits and interview opportunities to promote series and projects rolling out over the next six months or so.

The most recent TCA press tour, which I attended in Pasadena, Calif. (the picture above shows me giving the group's Heritage Award to Twin Peaks during the TCA Awards July 12), concluded in the middle of last week. And, predictable as an afternoon rain shower in Florida, The Hollywood Reporter rolled out a tough piece describing “The Incredible Shrinking Press Tour.”

“Frustrations with a staid press conference format, accelerated by Hollywood belt-tightening and the COVID-era shift away from in-person gatherings, to say nothing of severe budget cuts across the media landscape, have taken a visible toll on the press tour,” read the story, which quoted unnamed publicists of TV programmers sniping about having to participate. “An event that once stretched more than two packed weeks wrapped its latest cycle on July 17 after a thin eight days. Powerhouse streamers such as Netflix, Apple and Amazon were absent, and not a single programming executive took the stage to face down the press.”

(cast of Brooklyn Nine Nine at a TCA set visit)

True enough, this year’s press tour was smaller than previous outings; the event has struggled to return after COVID sidelined much of the TV industry. But Hollywood has also been buffeted by the impact of two strikes last year and concern – so far averted – that there might be a third this year.

A surplus of TV programming, increased production costs and caution about this year’s climate has led some big projects to be delayed until next year – more than one person in the industry joked to me about the phrase many are repeating in Hollywood, hoping to “survive until 2025.” Downsizing in media has also made it tougher for journalists to find the time and financial resources to attend press conferences at a swanky hotel which stretch out over more than a week.

Turns out, there’s lots of reasons why the tour has slimmed down this year, as the industry itself recalibrates and refocuses amid lots of institutional change.

But, as someone who has attended TCA tours since 1997 – yes, I’m THAT old -- I’m here to say that the tour remains a relevant and useful part of covering the industry, despite the anonymous sniping of assorted industry types.

(Yours truly visiting The Price is Right set during a TCA tour.)

When I first began attending tour, as the TV critic for the St. Petersburg Times in Florida, the event was filled with critics like me from regional papers from across the country. We were trying to give our local readers insight into an industry which came into their living rooms nightly for hours at time. And for me, the TCA tour was an invaluable crash course in modern television.

Over the years, I got to know publicists who arranged exclusive visits to the sets of ER, Six Feet Under, Sex and The City and Law & Order. I quizzed industry leaders at on the record receptions, including former CBS head Les Moonves, Fox News founder Roger Ailes, Survivor and The Apprentice executive producer Mark Burnett, FX head John Landgraf and Scandal/Grey’s Anatomy creator Shonda Rhimes.

When the late, lamented UPN network created a sitcom that felt a bit too close to being a veiled comedy about slavery – the show was called The Secret Diary of Desmond Pfeiffer, look it up – I was there to challenge the network’s executives and its producers. When Ailes and the Fox News anchor Chris Wallace tried to deny the way the cable newschannel favored conservatives, I was there, again, with access I would never have gotten any other way.

Most recently, in February, I asked producers from The Bachelor franchise why the show has struggled to handle racial issues – leading to losing its longtime host Chris Harrison and, possibly, the show’s creator Mike Fleiss. Their eight seconds of silence before a roomful of TV critics spoke volumes and sparked headlines nationwide.

There are few other major industries in America where the people who run things are expected to regularly face a group of journalists asking questions, sometimes pointed, about the decisions they have made. Given that media is occupying an increasing portion of our lives, having a forum where the press can interrogate the work of newscasters, documentarians, reality TV producers, media executives, series showrunners and big stars in public is incredibly valuable – both to journalists and the general public.

(former ABC entertainment president Jamie Tarses faced tough questions from reporters at TCA in 1997.)

The TCA tour has drawn lots of barbs over the years, from complaints from TV outlets about how much it costs to present press conferences, receptions and special events, to criticisms about the value of promotional items given to critics (that’s been severely toned down from the time, decade ago, when one network handed me a free cellphone after a press conference. I handed it back, noting it was far too valuable a gift to accept.)

But, as a former TCA board member from many years ago, I think what really rankles some in the TV industry is how little control they have over what happens at tours. Despite loads of coaching from experienced publicists, it is tough to predict what questions will be asked during a 40-minute press session, and an off-the-mark response can resonate for a while (Besides The Bachelor producers, I remember stars like Roseanne Barr, Katherine Heigl and even Donald Trump earning lots of critical coverage from bad press tour appearances.)

Entertainment trade publications have also often cast shade on the press tour, which regularly invites legions of less powerful and more removed journalists into the kind of access they usually enjoy.

What keeps the tour going, beyond its value to TCA members, is the ever-increasing need for publicity to punch through a media environment filled with more noise, distraction and competition than ever. Those who make TV need more ways to reach consumers, and the TCA tours still offer programmers the opportunity to reach journalists who connect with millions of consumers every day.

If the TCA press tours go away, what will be left is overly stage-managed press conferences wholly controlled by the TV outlets, with access severely limited to journalists and critics in big cities like New York and Los Angeles.

I hope that doesn’t happen. Because my time at the TCA has been among the most rewarding experiences in a long career, offering a window into the TV industry that is unparalleled and always enlightening.

[mariacallous]

Between 2000 and 2020, the total number of Americans owing federal student loans more than doubled from 21 million to 45 million, and the total amount they owed more than quadrupled from $387 billion to $1.8 trillion, growing much faster than any other form of household debt. Figure 1 shows the growth in student loan borrowers and balances

Prior to 2020, when payments were temporarily frozen, a million students defaulted each year, and millions more struggled with their loans and failed to make payments. As recently as 2018, the Congressional Budget Office expected taxpayers to earn a profit on federal student lending programs. It now expects new loans issued over the next decade will instead cost $393 billion—more than will be spent on Pell grants for low-income undergraduates (Congressional Budget Office 2024). Moreover, that prospective cost estimate excludes hundreds of billions of write-downs on existing loans expected because of new policies that will reduce borrowers’ payments and provide debt forgiveness. Compounding these financial costs, many students left college without a degree or with a degree of dubious value, having missed out on the opportunity to rise up the economic ladder. What went wrong?

Since federal student lending programs started in the 1950s, such programs have exhibited boom-and-bust credit cycles. Legislation expanding financial aid to increase educational opportunities led to increased enrollment but also to the proliferation and expansion of institutions providing low-quality education to riskier students. The subsequent deterioration of student outcomes—and reports of scandals—caused Congress to limit lending using so-called “accountability rules,” regulating how postsecondary institutions participate in federal lending programs. When these new rules constrained opportunities for some would-be students, Congress would then whittle away at the rules, allowing student loans to expand again, until a new range of concerns appeared.

After a previous student loan crisis in the 1980s was arrested by new accountability rules passed by Congress, those rules were gradually loosened in the late 1990s. Almost immediately, college enrollment and student borrowing accelerated, particularly among groups that had historically been underrepresented at traditional institutions—students who were lower-income; first-generation students; Black and Hispanic; older; enrolled less than full time; pursuing degrees other than a B.A.; and much more likely to rely on federal aid not just for tuition but also for other costs of attendance, like living expenses. Expanding educational opportunities for these groups is clearly desirable and a key purpose of financial aid programs. But from the perspective of student lending, these new borrowers were much riskier, partly because of their socioeconomic backgrounds and partly because of the institutions they attended.

The institutions that enrolled this new wave of borrowers were disproportionately not traditional four-year institutions with strong educational and economic outcomes. Starting around 2000, for-profit institutions tripled their enrollment and community college students tripled their rate of borrowing. In 2000, only one of the top ten schools in terms of aggregate student loan volume was for-profit. By 2014, for-profits accounted for eight of the ten schools whose students owed the most (Looney and Yannelis 2015). In general, the schools that enrolled the surge of new students were those with high default rates and low student loan repayment rates, where few students complete their intended degrees, or where graduates’ earnings are the lowest. This influx of disadvantaged borrowers to lower-quality schools was catastrophic for those students’ finances, aggregate student loan outcomes, and the federal student loan budget. Between 2000 and 2014, the student loan default rate rose by 75% (Looney and Yannelis 2015).

Today’s student loan crisis—and the fact that it is one of a series—highlights the challenges of using a student loan financial aid system to promote access to educational opportunities that vary enormously (but in opaque ways) in their quality, value, and student outcomes. Today, the student loan program is the most costly federal program for subsidizing higher education. In contrast to other federal aid to students, however, loan eligibility is not means tested, and few guardrails exist to prevent using loans to pursue low-quality or excessively costly programs. As a result, the program’s budget cost and its distributional effects are delegated to the program’s beneficiaries themselves—the institutions, which enroll students and set the cost of attendance, and the students, who decide where to enroll and how much to borrow. Schools’ payments are only very weakly linked to students’ outcomes. As a result of these misaligned incentives, students—particularly disadvantaged students and those historically underrepresented at universities—face high costs, variable quality, and inequity in who goes to college and graduate school.

[rjzimmerman]

Excerpt from this story from Utility Dive:

tility-scale renewables development has ground to a halt in at least 15% of U.S. counties due to a combination of bans, moratoriums, and overly strict zoning and land-use restrictions, according to a February analysis by USA Today.

Lawmakers in Michigan, New York, Illinois and other states with 100% carbon-free electricity goals are pushing back with policies that centralize renewables permitting at the state level, provide financial incentives for more permissive local ordinances, or both. Though initiatives like Michigan’s Renewables Ready Communities Award program are too new to have had an observable impact, the early success of two New York programs is heartening for advocates of community-oriented approaches that include tangible financial benefits for municipalities and utility customers.

“There is no question that these packages help [developers] gain public support,” said Dan Spitzer, who co-leads New York-based law firm Hodgson Russ’s cleantech and renewable energy practice.

Such efforts could accelerate onshore wind and solar development, keeping state and federal governments on track to reach their clean electricity goals in the short term. But experts worry that the backlash to state policies perceived as unfair by host communities could entrench local opposition to utility-scale renewables, spur litigation and ultimately slow the energy transition. The most effective state policies, they say, incentivize constructive local participation in siting and permitting processes and nudge developers to treat host communities fairly while limiting opportunities for opponents to delay or kill mutually beneficial projects.

“Ørsted favors working directly with local governments, but the local units often need or ask for a common framework to guide development in addition to incentives offered by states,” said Hayes Framme, head of new markets and growth for Ørsted, which has a 3-GW onshore wind portfolio and nearly 700 MW of utility-scale solar and energy storage under construction.

[thoughtportal]

undefined

Once You See the Truth About Cars, You Can’t Unsee It https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/15/opinion/car-ownership-inequality.html

By Andrew Ross and Julie Livingston

Mr. Ross and Ms. Livingston are professors at New York University, members of its Prison Education Program Research Lab and authors of the book “Cars and Jails: Freedom Dreams, Debt, and Carcerality.”

In American consumer lore, the automobile has always been a “freedom machine” and liberty lies on the open road. “Americans are a race of independent people” whose “ancestors came to this country for the sake of freedom and adventure,” the National Automobile Chamber of Commerce’s soon-to-be-president, Roy Chapin, declared in 1924. “The automobile satisfies these instincts.” During the Cold War, vehicles with baroque tail fins and oodles of surplus chrome rolled off the assembly line, with Native American names like Pontiac, Apache, Dakota, Cherokee, Thunderbird and Winnebago — the ultimate expressions of capitalist triumph and Manifest Destiny.

But for many low-income and minority Americans, automobiles have been turbo-boosted engines of inequality, immobilizing their owners with debt, increasing their exposure to hostile law enforcement, and in general accelerating the forces that drive apart haves and have-nots.

Though progressive in intent, the Biden administration’s signature legislative achievements on infrastructure and climate change will further entrench the nation’s staunch commitment to car production, ownership and use. The recent Inflation Reduction Act offers subsidies for many kinds of vehicles using alternative fuel, and should result in real reductions in emissions, but it includes essentially no direct incentives for public transit — by far the most effective means of decarbonizing transport. And without comprehensive policy efforts to eliminate discriminatory policing and predatory lending, merely shifting to electric from combustion will do nothing to reduce car owners’ ever-growing risk of falling into legal and financial jeopardy, especially those who are poor or Black.

By the 1940s, African American car owners had more reason than anyone to see their vehicles as freedom machines, as a means to escape, however temporarily, redlined urban ghettos in the North or segregated towns in the South. But their progress on roads outside of the metro core was regularly obstructed by the police, threatened by vigilante assaults, and stymied by owners of whites-only restaurants, lodgings and gas stations. Courts granted the police vast discretionary authority to stop and search for any one of hundreds of code violations — powers that they did not apply evenly. Today, officers make more than 50,000 traffic stops a day. Driving while Black has become a major route to incarceration — or much worse. When Daunte Wright was killed by a police officer in April 2021, he had been pulled over for an expired registration tag on his car’s license plate. He joined the long list of Black drivers whose violent and premature deaths at the hands of police were set in motion by a minor traffic infraction — Sandra Bland (failure to use a turn signal), Maurice Gordon (alleged speeding), Samuel DuBose (missing front license plate) and Philando Castile and Walter Scott (broken taillights) among them. Despite widespread criticism of the flimsy pretexts used to justify traffic stops, and the increasing availability of cellphone or police body cam videos, the most recent data shows that the number of deaths from police-driver interactions is almost as high as it has been over the past five years.

In the consumer arena, cars have become tightly sprung debt traps. The average monthly auto loan payment crossed $700 for the first time this year, which does not include insurance or maintenance costs. Subprime lending and longer loan terms of up to 84 months have resulted in a doubling of auto loan debt over the last decade and a notable surge in the number of drivers who are “upside down”— owing more money than their cars are worth. But, again, the pain is not evenly distributed. Auto financing companies often charge nonwhite consumers higher interest rates than white consumers, as do insurers.

Formerly incarcerated buyers whose credit scores are depressed from inactivity are especially red meat to dealers and predatory lenders. In our research, we spoke to many such buyers who found it easier, upon release from prison, to acquire expensive cars than to secure an affordable apartment. Some, like LeMarcus, a Black Brooklynite (whose name has been changed to protect his privacy under ethical research guidelines), discovered that loans were readily available for a luxury vehicle but not for the more practical car he wanted. Even with friends and family willing to help him with a down payment, after he spent roughly five years in prison, his credit score made it impossible to get a Honda or “a regular car.” Instead, relying on a friend to co-sign a loan, he was offered a high-interest loan on a pre-owned Mercedes E350. LeMarcus knew it was a bad deal, but the dealer told him the bank that would have financed a Honda “wanted a more solid foundation, good credit, income was showing more,” but that to finance the Mercedes, it “was actually willing to work with the people with lower credit and lower down payments.” We interviewed many other formerly incarcerated people who followed a similar path, only to see their cars repossessed.

Did you know you can share 10 gift articles a month, even with nonsubscribers?

Share this article.

LeMarcus was “car rich, cash poor,” a common and precarious condition that can have serious legal consequences for low-income drivers, as can something as simple as a speeding ticket. A $200 ticket is a meaningless deterrent to a hedge fund manager from Greenwich, Conn., who is pulled over on the way to the golf club, but it could be a devastating blow to those who mow the fairways at the same club. If they cannot pay promptly, they will face cascading penalties. If they cannot take a day off work to appear in court, they risk a bench warrant or loss of their license for debt delinquency. Judges in local courts routinely skirt the law of the land (in Supreme Court decisions like Bearden v. Georgia and Timbs v. Indiana) by disregarding the offender’s ability to pay traffic debt. At the request of collection agencies, they also issue arrest or contempt warrants for failure to appear in court on unpaid auto loan debts. With few other options to travel to work, millions of Americans make the choice to continue driving even without a license, which means their next traffic stop may land them in jail.

The pathway that leads from a simple traffic fine to financial insolvency or detention is increasingly crowded because of the spread of revenue policing intended to generate income from traffic tickets, court fees and asset forfeiture. Fiscally squeezed by austerity policies, officials extract the funds from those least able to pay. This is not only an awful way to fund governments; it is also a form of backdoor, regressive taxation that circumvents voters’ input.

Deadly traffic stops, racially biased predatory lending and revenue policing have all come under public scrutiny of late, but typically they are viewed as distinct realms of injustice, rather than as the interlocking systems that they are. Once you see it, you can’t unsee it: A traffic stop can result in fines or arrest; time behind bars can result in repossession or a low credit score; a low score results in more debt and less ability to pay fines, fees and surcharges. Championed as a kind of liberation, car ownership — all but mandatory in most parts of the country — has for many become a vehicle of capture and control.

Industry boosters promise us that technological advances like on-demand transport, self-driving electric vehicles and artificial intelligence-powered traffic cameras will smooth out the human errors that lead to discrimination, and that car-sharing will reduce the runaway costs of ownership. But no combination of apps and cloud-based solutions can ensure that the dealerships, local municipalities, courts and prison industries will be willing to give up the steady income they derive from shaking down motorists.

Aside from the profound need for accessible public transportation, what could help? Withdraw armed police officers from traffic duties, just as they have been from parking and tollbooth enforcement in many jurisdictions. Introduce income-graduated traffic fines. Regulate auto lending with strict interest caps and steep penalties for concealing fees and add-ons and for other well-known dealership scams. Crack down hard on the widespread use of revenue policing. And close the back door to debtors’ prisons by ending the use of arrest warrants in debt collection cases. Without determined public action along these lines, technological advances often end up reproducing deeply rooted prejudices. As Malcolm X wisely said, “Racism is like a Cadillac; they bring out a new model every year.”

Andrew Ross and Julie Livingston are professors at New York University, members of its Prison Education Program Research Lab and authors of the book “Cars and Jails: Freedom Dreams, Debt, and Carcerality.”

[usafphantom2]

Czech government approves $9.8 billion for supersonic combat aircraft

Czech Gripen fighters will operate until 2035.

Fernando Valduga By Fernando Valduga 12/01/2023 - 14:00 in Military

The Czech cabinet on Wednesday approved $9.8 billion in funding to finance its supersonic combat aviation by 2035, including the purchase of 24 F-35As and the continued operation of the Gripen C/D fighters now in service until they are delivered. (Photo: Saab)

This week, the Czech government approved an investment program that establishes the maximum possible expenses for the maintenance and development of supersonic aviation by 2036. The total costs were set at a maximum of 212.8 billion Czech crowns (approximately US$ 9.8 billion).

This includes the acquisition of F-35 aircraft, the continued operation of the JAS39 Gripen aircraft in service until 2035 and the construction of the necessary infrastructure. Reserves for exchange rate fluctuations and other financial and material risks are also included.

The preparation of a document called an asset reproduction program is required by law. The approval will allow the protection of the sovereignty of the Czech Republic's airspace, as well as the fulfillment of obligations to NATO and the European Union beyond the year 2050.

The Czech Republic decided to acquire 24 F-35A fighters.

The total cost of maintaining and developing the capabilities of the Czech supersonic air force is set at US$ 9.8 billion. “They do not only concern the acquisition of F-35 aircraft, but investments in the entire supersonic air force of the Czech Republic Army until 2036,” said Defense Minister Jana Cernochová. The amount also includes the use of Gripen aircraft, expected until 2035. In the same year, the new F-35 aircraft should also reach the intended operational capacity.

The program includes, for example, the acquisition of 24 F-35 aircraft, expenses to ensure the real estate infrastructure necessary for the fighter force, an estimate of the costs of renting or supporting JAS39 aircraft and a foreign exchange reserve.

The asset reproduction program is a planning document required by the Budget Regulation Law that defines the maximum financial, temporal and material framework for planned investment expenses. The total amount cannot be effectively used, but cannot be exceeded. The plans are therefore drawn up with all possible risks in mind.

Saab JAS39 Gripen fighters will continue to operate in the Czech Republic until 2035.

Each asset reproduction program includes in its financial framework the consideration of possible material and price risks, i.e. prices of materials and services, exchange rates in the case of contracts in foreign currencies and other phenomena very difficult to predict for a period of almost fifteen years.

The purchase of 5ª generation F-35 aircraft was approved by the government in September this year based on the military recommendation of the Army of the Czech Republic. Acquisition costs will be paid gradually between 2024 and 2034. The entire project was calculated at about 150 billion crowns ($6.7 billion), including the purchase of aircraft and the construction of the necessary infrastructure.

Tags: Military AviationF-35 Lightning IICzech Air ForceJAS39 Gripen

Sharing

tweet

Fernando Valduga

Fernando Valduga

Aviation photographer and pilot since 1992, has participated in several events and air operations, such as Cruzex, AirVenture, Dayton Airshow and FIDAE. He has work published in specialized aviation magazines in Brazil and abroad. Uses Canon equipment during his photographic work in the world of aviation.

Related news

MILITARY

United Kingdom wants to accelerate the development of the future Tempest fighter

01/12/2023 - 11:00

MILITARY

Piaggio completes the modernization of the first P.180 of the Italian Air Force

01/12/2023 - 10:30

MILITARY

Kazakhstan opts for Russian Su-30SM fighters instead of the French Rafales due to costs

12/01/2023 - 08:34

With the P-8, Canada guarantees the interchangeability of allies NORAD and FIVE EYES.

MILITARY

Canada selects Boeing's P-8A Poseidon as its new multi-mission aircraft

30/11/2023 - 18:52

BRAZILIAN AIR FORCE

UFSM receives A-1 jet donated by FAB

30/11/2023 - 18:01

One of the first of the 32 F-16s for Romania being delivered by the Norwegian Minister of Defense on November 28. (Photo: Norwegian Armed Forces)

MILITARY

Romania receives first F-16s that were from the Norwegian Air Force

11/30/2023 - 5:00 PM

[thaivisanews]

Thailand SMART Visa

Thailand's ambition to transform its economy into a high-tech hub has led to the creation of the SMART Visa program. Launched in 2020, this visa aims to attract skilled professionals, investors, and entrepreneurs across ten targeted industries deemed crucial for the nation's growth. Let's delve deeper into the intricacies of the SMART Visa program and explore its various facets.

Tailored Categories for Specific Needs

The SMART Visa caters to a diverse range of individuals by offering four distinct categories:

SMART Talent (T) Visa: This category targets highly skilled professionals with expertise in fields like robotics, aviation, and digital technology. Applicants must possess a minimum monthly salary of 100,000 baht (approximately $3,000 USD) and have their work experience endorsed by a relevant government agency within the Strategic Talent Center (STC) network. This visa offers a maximum four-year stay with the possibility of renewal.

SMART Business (B) Visa: This category focuses on attracting business executives and investors. Applicants can qualify by demonstrating a minimum investment in a Thai company or a minimum annual income derived from overseas. Unlike the T visa, the B visa doesn't require specific industry expertise but offers a shorter maximum stay of two years, also renewable.

SMART Startup (S) Visa: This visa is ideal for entrepreneurs seeking to establish or join a startup in Thailand. Applicants can qualify by having a stake in a registered Thai startup or participating in an approved accelerator or incubator program. The S visa offers flexible stay durations of 6 months, 1 year, or 2 years, depending on the specific circumstances.

SMART Family (F) Visa: Spouses and children of SMART Visa holders can apply for the F visa, allowing them to accompany the main visa holder and reside in Thailand for the duration of the primary visa's validity. This eliminates the need for dependents to obtain separate visas, simplifying the relocation process.

Beyond Long Stays: Unveiling the SMART Visa Advantage

The SMART Visa goes beyond just offering extended stays. Here's a breakdown of some of its key benefits:

Fast-Track Immigration: SMART Visa holders benefit from expedited immigration services at designated Thai airports, saving valuable time upon arrival.

Work Permit Exemption: The T visa and, in some cases, the B visa exempt holders from the need to obtain a separate work permit, streamlining the employment process. Spouses with F visas may also be eligible to work without a separate work permit.

Tax Incentives: SMART Visa holders in certain categories might be eligible for tax benefits such as reduced personal income tax rates or exemptions on imported equipment for business ventures.

Multiple Re-Entry: Unlike some Thai visas, the SMART Visa allows for multiple entries and exits throughout its validity period, offering greater travel flexibility.

Eligibility Nuances and the Application Process

The eligibility requirements for each SMART Visa category can be nuanced. It's crucial to consult with a Thai immigration lawyer to determine the most suitable category and ensure you meet all the specific criteria. Here's a simplified overview of the application process:

Category Selection: Identify the SMART Visa category that best aligns with your goals and qualifications (Talent, Business, Startup, or Family).

Documentation Gathering: Compile the necessary documents as per your chosen category, which may include academic certificates, employment contracts, business plans, or financial statements.

Endorsement (if applicable): For the T visa, endorsement from a relevant STC agency is mandatory. This involves submitting your application and qualifications to the designated agency for review and approval.

Application Submission: Applications are typically submitted through the Thailand Board of Investment (BOI) or a designated embassy or consulate.

The Legal Landscape: Considerations and Potential Challenges

While the SMART Visa program offers exciting prospects, some factors require careful consideration:

Industry Specificity: The T visa's focus on targeted industries might exclude skilled professionals in other sectors.

Work Permit Exemptions: The work permit exemption associated with certain SMART Visas might not apply to all job roles within a company. Consulting with an immigration lawyer is crucial to navigate this complexity.

Evolving Regulations: The SMART Visa program is relatively new, and regulations might evolve over time. Staying updated with the latest requirements is essential.

Conclusion

The SMART Visa program presents a compelling opportunity for skilled professionals, entrepreneurs, and their families seeking to establish themselves in Thailand's dynamic economy. By understanding the intricacies of each category, its benefits, and the application process, individuals can leverage this program to chart a successful course in the Land of Smiles. Remember, seeking expert legal advice can ensure a smooth application process and maximize your chances of securing a SMART Visa.

[beardedmrbean]

Migrants in Chicago huddle on the floors of police stations and sleep in city buses kept running overnight to block out the cold. In Massachusetts, where the emergency shelter system hit capacity earlier this month, the state is converting office space into shelters and at least one local group is stockpiling sleeping bags.

And in New York, where shelters are also full, the city has taken the extraordinary steps of providing migrants one-way plane tickets to as far away as Morocco and have contemplated handing out tents to newly-arriving migrants so they can sleep in parks.

Northern cities and states that have been overwhelmed by a surge in migrants are now out of room to house them just as the weather turns cold — a potentially life-threatening situation that’s inflaming local political tensions as the Biden administration largely leaves these Democratic strongholds to fend for themselves.

“The state that took my ancestors in fleeing from pogroms in Ukraine will not allow asylum seekers to freeze to death on our doorsteps,” Gov. JB Pritzker said last week, referring to his family’s immigration to Illinois.

The dual crises of lowering temperatures and a lack of shelter space are forcing some jurisdictions to tighten long-standing policies that previously ensured people without homes would have a place to stay — and in some cases, confront simmering racial divides.

Federal Homeland Security officials have held legal clinics in all three states to help process thousands of migrants’ work permits more quickly. It’s a step local and state officials say is key to helping migrants provide for their families — and move out of the city and state-run shelters where they’ve been living in some cases for more than a year. The White House also included $1.4 billion for grants to local governments and nonprofits providing services for recently arrived migrants as part of a larger spending bill for Israel and Ukraine.

A DHS official not authorized to speak publicly said about $800 million has been allocated for temporary shelter and other services through various emergency food and shelter programs.

But that’s not enough for Democratic mayors and governors who have been publicly and privately pleading with the Biden administration for help bolstering and expanding their maxed-out shelter systems, calls that are taking on new urgency as winter sets in and temperatures drop below freezing.

Pritzker said at least $65 million of the new $160 million the state is investing to address its migrant surge will go toward a “winterized soft shelter site” to house up to 2,000 migrants.

Pritzker repeated his concern that the migrant crisis is an issue requiring broader federal coordination and said Chicago officials haven’t “moved fast enough” to deal with it: “We’re stepping in here to try to help and accelerate this process.”

It’s an unprecedented problem in northern cities and states that, unlike their southern-border counterparts, are unaccustomed to dealing with tens of thousands of migrants.

Officials in New York City, which now houses more than 65,600 migrants, acknowledge that it’s out of space and in October issued 60-day notices to families with children to find new accommodations. Adults without kids have only 30 days to find housing outside the city shelter system — unwelcomed pressure to find their own housing as winter settles in.

Mayor Eric Adams’ administration is continuing to press the Biden administration to provide more help — as it has done for months.

“As the temperature starts to drop, it is crucial — now more than ever — that the federal government finish the job they started,” Adams’ spokesperson Kayla Mamelak Altus said in a statement. “We need meaningful financial help and a national decompression strategy. New York City cannot continue to manage a national crisis almost entirely on its own.”

Some advocacy groups are concerned about whether New York City’s massive tents that can sometimes hold 2,000 people will hold up through winter.

Murad Awawdeh, executive director of the New York Immigration Coalition, said recent flooding created an unhealthy situation at some locations, saying there needs to be more permanent solution for people.

“I think for us it really is everything coming to bear at a time when the weather is really cold,” Awawdeh said.

Chicago’s looming frigid winter is pushing lawmakers to get migrants indoors — but the effort has exposed a divide between city officials and Black and brown residents, who have resisted the city’s attempt to build heated base camps for migrants in their neighborhoods. That in turn has delayed the process to get migrants out of the elements.

“There’s a huge urgency, and it’s been a challenge because of the emotions,” Jason Lee, the top adviser to Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, told POLITICO.

Parts of Chicago’s South Side, known for its large Black community, are particularly uneasy about the attention to caring for migrants.

“Residents are seeing that after all this time of promising something for us, nothing has come of it. Now you have folks who have just come to this country, and they’re being serviced,” said South Side Alderperson Ronnie Mosley.

Chicago is also imposing a 60-day limit for shelter stays, mirroring New York, and working to construct two camps for the winter that can house migrants currently sleeping on floors or in tents.

More than 24,000 asylum seekers have arrived in Chicago since August 2022, with about 2,200 of those new arrivals huddled on the floors of police stations and at O’Hare International Airport waiting to get into a shelter.

Time is key in Chicago and other northern cities preparing for winter.

The efforts, however, are complicated by the racial dynamics of Chicago. Traditionally underserved Black and brown communities are sensitive to the plight of immigrants on the streets, but they are also upset when they feel their needs, such as jobs and housing for people in their communities, are being ignored.

“We know that people are people and anyone coming to seek refuge here shouldn’t be turned away or told that we can’t help,” Alderperson Andre Vasquez, who heads the Chicago City Council’s Committee on Immigrant and Refugee Rights, said in an interview. “Neighbors on the ground understand it, as complex as it is.”

In Massachusetts, migrant families could also face nights in the streets. The state is supposed to guarantee many homeless families and pregnant women are sheltered under its “right-to-shelter” law.

But Gov. Maura Healey instituted a 7,500-family — or roughly 24,000-person — capacity limit on the state’s emergency shelter system because the first-term Democrat said the state is out of space, money and providers to safely house anyone else.

The state hit that cap on Nov. 9. Now, migrant and homeless families seeking emergency assistance are being put on a waitlist for housing — an unprecedented move that has drawn backlash from homelessness-prevention advocates and an unsuccessful lawsuit from a nonprofit civil-rights advocacy group to stop it. The state estimates that about half of the homeless families being housed under the program are migrants.

Families arriving at the state’s “welcome centers” are now being screened for medical and safety risks — such as high-risk pregnancies or exposure to threats of domestic violence — and, if there’s no shelter space available that day, turned away and told to return to the “last safe place” they stayed.

The Healey administration seeded the United Way of Massachusetts Bay with $5 million to mete out to faith-based and community groups to open up temporary overnight shelters. The first site, for up to 27 families, or around 81 people, launched this week.

But there were none operational for nearly two weeks after the waitlist went into effect, leading at least one Boston-based service provider to stockpile sleeping bags in case families needed to sleep in its office. Migrants, including children, were taken to Logan Airport only to be told they couldn’t sleep there, either.

On Monday, Healey administration officials temporarily converted office space at a state transportation building into a shelter for up to 25 families a night. But the shelter is only expected to operate for two weeks.

The move comes as the Biden administration has so far rebuffed the governor’s pleas for help standing up a larger group shelter for waitlisted families. Federal officials have, however, partnered with the state on a legal clinic to more quickly process migrants’ work permits, serving more than 1,000 migrants last week as it runs through month’s end.

With additional federal dollars largely out of reach, Healey has instead been forced to return to state lawmakers — who already infused the shelter system with $410 million this year — for another $250 million.

But two months after she requested it, the money remains mired in an inter-chamber battle between a Democratic-controlled House and Senate that can’t agree on whether to specify how Healey can use the funds. Advocacy groups have taken to the State House in recent days to protest lawmakers’ lack of a deal.

“There is obviously a huge concern about the health and safety of people who are going to have no place to sleep and no place to turn,” said Andrea Park of the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute that does housing advocacy work. ”I think that we’re going to see some very desperate situations.”

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

As electric vehicles gain momentum in Brazil, China's influence shines through

In 2023, EV car sales rose 91 percent compared to 2022

Brazil has the sixth-highest greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, with transport alone responsible for around 16 percent of the country's total emissions. One of the main reasons for this is the significant consumption of diesel and gasoline. Research shows that electric vehicles (EVs), despite requiring more energy to manufacture due to their batteries, produce significantly less carbon emission over their lifetimes compared to gasoline-powered vehicles. Because of this difference in emissions, EVs will play a crucial role in Brazil’s green energy transition. 

The vast majority of EVs in Brazil are imported from China. To protect its burgeoning domestic industry, Brazil reintroduced an import tax on EVs from China, and at the same time issued Mover, a new policy to support domestic companies’ innovation through investment. Chinese companies are adjusting to the new policy and also trying to gain some control in Brazil's lithium extraction industry — a key raw material in manufacturing batteries for EVs.

Within Brazil's population of 215 million people, EVs have steadily grown in popularity over the past few years. In 2023, there was a 91 percent increase in EV cars sold compared to the previous year — much of this due to Chinese EV imports and the growing influence of Chinese producers. But as Chinese companies make headway in Brazil's market, they are set to face obstacles, such as high prices, lacking infrastructure, and a market currently limited to Brazil's upper economic classes. 

Brazilian legislators have long been encouraging the green transition in the auto sector. As early as 2018, the Brazilian federal government began the “Rota 2030” plan, which set a goal that electric vehicle sales would account for 30 percent of Brazil's total car sales by 2030. Last December, “Mover,” a new program to replace Rota 2030, was launched to grant carmakers access to financial credit in return for investments in sustainable mobility, including EVs and hybrid cars. The program is meant to expand investments in energy efficiency, set minimum thresholds for recycling in car making, and create incentives to pollute less through tax subsidies.

It was touted as the “biggest decarbonization program in history” by Brazil's vice-president, Geraldo Alckmin. By January 2029, the program will have doled out approximately USD 3.5 billion in financial credits. According to global consultancy KPMG, Mover has the potential to accelerate decarbonization in the automotive sector.

Continue reading.

[veenamalik]

Financial sources

To launch 'Little Ladoo' at the farmer’s market with sufficient initial funding, I have outlined a diverse set of financial sources:

Personal Savings: I will utilize my savings to provide an initial start-up investment, including ingredient procurement, packaging materials, and initial marketing efforts.

Family and Friends: I will ask for financial support from family members who share my enthusiasm for this business opportunity. This contribution will primarily be used to acquire essential kitchen equipment and establish a strong presence at the farmer’s market.

Government Grant: I will apply for a government grant tailored to small businesses in the food sector. This grant program offers funding specifically for equipment purchases and initial operational costs, which will significantly support our ability to expand and meet customer demand.

Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC): Leveraging the equity in my home, I will apply for a HELOC to secure additional capital for scaling operations and navigating potential unforeseen expenses during the early stages of 'Little Ladoo.' This financing option provides flexibility and ensures I have adequate resources to sustain growth."

Government Sources to Consider: In my research find some sources that can help me to grow my business in the future.

City of Toronto Small Business Grants:

The City of Toronto offers various grant programs to support small businesses and entrepreneurs across different sectors.

 For specific programs like the Starter Company Plus program, which provides training, mentorship, and grant funding of up to $5,000.

Ontario Government Grants:

Ontario provincial government provides grants and funding programs aimed at supporting small businesses, including programs like the Ontario Small Business Support Grant,

Federal Government Grants:

The Government of Canada offers various grant programs through agencies like the Canada Business Network (CBN) and Innovation, Science, and Economic Development Canada (ISED).

Non-Profit Organizations and Associations:

Toronto Region Board of Trade: TRBOT offers support and resources to small businesses, including information on funding opportunities and grants available in the Toronto region.

Startup Incubators and Accelerators:

Organizations like Ryerson Futures, DMZ, and Next Canada provide not only funding but also mentorship, networking opportunities, and access to investors for startups in Toronto.

[manishaasinfratecho]

Unlocking Savings and Sustainability: How Solar Panels Can Benefit Your Business in Delhi ? 🌞

In today's competitive business landscape, Delhi companies are constantly seeking ways to reduce operating costs and gain a competitive edge. One powerful solution is harnessing the clean and abundant power of the sun through solar panel installation.

Sustainable Savings:

Soaring electricity bills can significantly impact your bottom line. Solar panels offer a long-term solution by generating clean electricity on-site. This reduces your reliance on the grid, leading to substantial savings on your monthly electricity bills. Delhi, with its ample sunshine hours, is a prime location for maximizing the benefits of solar power.

Environmental Responsibility:

Consumers are increasingly making purchasing decisions based on a company's environmental practices. By installing solar panels for home or business, you demonstrate a commitment to sustainability and contribute to a cleaner Delhi. This not only reduces your company's carbon footprint but also enhances your brand image, attracting environmentally conscious customers and investors.

Government Incentives:

The Indian government actively promotes solar energy adoption by offering attractive incentives. This includes subsidies on solar panel installation in Delhi, accelerated depreciation benefits, and net metering programs. Net metering allows you to sell excess electricity generated by your solar panels back to the grid, further increasing your financial gains.

Increased Property Value:

Investing in solar panels adds value to your commercial property. Studies show buildings with solar systems tend to sell faster and at a higher price point compared to those without. This is because potential buyers recognize the long-term cost savings and environmental benefits associated with solar power.

Low Maintenance and Long Lifespan:

Modern solar panels are incredibly durable and require minimal maintenance. Routine cleaning and occasional inspections are all that's typically needed. Moreover, with a lifespan of 25 years or more, solar panels offer a reliable and long-term source of clean energy for your business.

Finding the Right Solar Partner:

Choosing the best solar panel company for your business needs is crucial. MITS Construction, a leader in Delhi's construction industry, offers comprehensive solar solutions. Our team of experienced professionals can guide you through the entire process, from initial consultation and system design to high-quality installation and after-sales support.

MITS Construction utilizes only top-tier solar panels from leading manufacturers, ensuring optimal performance and efficiency. We provide customized solutions tailored to your specific energy requirements and roof space, maximizing your return on investment.

Benefits Beyond Cost Savings:

The benefits of solar panels extend beyond immediate cost savings. Solar power reduces your reliance on fossil fuels, lessening your company's environmental impact. This fosters a positive work environment and attracts employees who value sustainability. Additionally, solar panels showcase your commitment to innovation and responsible business practices, strengthening your brand image and customer loyalty.

Taking the First Step:

If you're a business owner in Delhi looking to unlock the many advantages of solar power, MITS Construction is here to help. Contact us today for a free consultation to discuss your specific needs and explore the potential of solar energy for your business. Let's work together to build a brighter future, powered by the sun!

[a-flock-of-geese]

The Power of Manifestation: Transforming Thoughts into Reality

Manifestation, the art of bringing thoughts into reality, has intrigued many for centuries. This practice, rooted in the belief that our thoughts shape our lives, involves more than just wishful thinking; it requires a deep understanding of one's mind learn more and emotions. By harnessing the power of positive thinking, affirmations, and visualization, individuals can potentially influence their life outcomes, transforming desires into tangible experiences.

Understanding Manifestation

Manifestation is based on the principle that all thoughts turn into things eventually. If you focus on negative doom and gloom, you will remain under that cloud. Conversely, positive thoughts can bring about positive change. This concept isn't just mystical; aspects of it are supported by psychological theories such as cognitive-behavioral therapy which suggests that changing thought patterns can alter behavior and outcomes.

The Role of the Subconscious

From birth to around the age of six, our subconscious minds are akin to sponges, absorbing information that shapes our beliefs and self-image. This early programming can significantly influence our thoughts and by extension, our life experiences. According to Dr. Bruce Lipton, a developmental biologist, up to 95% of our consciousness is actually subconscious. This vast, underexplored area of our mind plays a crucial role in manifestation.

Thoughts and Reality

Our thoughts are powerful enough to shape our reality. A study by the National Science Foundation claims that the average person has about 12,000 to 60,000 thoughts per day, of which 80% are negative and 95% are repetitive. This highlights the challenge of manifestation: to consciously direct a significant portion of these thoughts towards positive outcomes.

Techniques for Effective Manifestation

Manifestation isn't just about thinking positively; it's a multifaceted process that involves clarity, emotion, and action.

Clarity in Desires

Being specific about what you want is crucial. Ambiguity can lead to mixed results. For instance, instead of merely wishing for financial abundance, define what abundance means to you, be it freedom from debt, a specific amount of savings, or financial security.

The Power of Affirmations

Affirmations are positive statements that can help to overcome self-sabotaging and negative thoughts. When these affirmations are repeated often, and believed in, they can help to change your mindset and manifest different outcomes. For example, affirming "I am capable and deserving of success" can help reinforce self-worth and confidence.

Visualization Techniques

Visualization is another powerful tool used in manifestation. It involves clearly imagining what you wish to achieve. By creating a vivid mental image of your desired outcome, complete with sensory details, you engage the subconscious mind which does not differentiate between real and imaginary stimuli. This process can enhance motivation and prepare you for opportunities aligned with your desires.

Emotional Alignment

Your emotions play a pivotal role in manifestation. Positive emotions like joy and gratitude can accelerate the manifestation process, while negative emotions like fear and doubt can impede it. Emotional alignment involves feeling the emotions that would accompany your desired outcomes, thereby aligning your energy with them.

[mariacallous]

The COVID-19 pandemic’s sudden onset in 2020 and its persistent impacts in ensuing years posed new challenges for large U.S. cities and metropolitan areas.

Some of the initial challenges were related to the specific nature of the coronavirus and public health responses. In March 2020, residents of cold, dense cities seemed at greater risk of contracting the airborne illness than those in more spread-out, temperate communities where people could spend time outside year-round.1 More persistent challenges are related to the rapid adoption of remote work technologies, which enable certain kinds of work to be done anywhere with a high-speed internet connection, and not necessarily in big-city downtowns dominated by what today are increasingly vacant office buildings.

In an increasingly hyper-polarized country, some of these dynamics intersected with partisan politics. Republican-led states such as Florida and Texas positioned themselves as refuges for movers seeking escape from “Covid lockdowns” in Democratic-led states. In response to these and other political factors, Elon Musk moved Tesla’s headquarters from Silicon Valley to Austin, Texas, and a prominent Chicago financier moved his hedge fund to Miami after his employees started working from a high-end hotel there during the height of the pandemic.

The housing market also played a role in fueling migration during this time. As more people worked from home, demand for homeownership rose, particularly for larger homes. For example, in San Diego County—which for many years had built little new housing—median home prices skyrocketed from $660,000 in January 2020 to $860,000 just two years later, according to Zillow. Prices also rose in more affordable, flexible markets, but much more modestly; in Houston over that same time, the median home price increased from $195,000 to $240,000.

My colleague William H. Frey was among the first to document significant migration away from big metro areas during the pandemic. His analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data showed accelerated domestic out-migration from large, coastal metro areas such as New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston, and Seattle between 2020 and 2021. Domestic in-migration, meanwhile, remained strong in Sun Belt metro areas such as Phoenix, Dallas, Tampa, Fla., San Antonio, and Raleigh, N.C. Frey’s subsequent analysis showed these trends moderated through 2022 and 2023 as the initial impacts of the pandemic subsided.

Even if they are temporary in some respects, these recent migration patterns could have lasting impacts. Richard Florida, for instance, points to the rise of “meta cities”—large U.S. metro areas distant from each other yet linked closely by the ties of remote work and Covid-era movers, such as New York and Miami (finance), the Bay Area and Austin (tech), and Los Angeles and Nashville, Tenn. (entertainment). The Economic Innovation Group chronicled a loss of high earners from major urban centers such as New York, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. during the first two years of the pandemic. The home listing service Redfin, meanwhile, noted rising housing demand in affordable markets proximate to major metro areas (e.g., New Haven, Conn. outside New York; Richmond, Va. outside Washington, D.C.; Worcester, Mass. outside Boston), suggesting the growing prominence of hybrid (versus fully remote) work arrangements. How these dynamics play out could have significant implications for the economic and social health of cities, and for America’s urban hierarchy in the 21st century.

To better understand these dynamics, this report analyzes data from the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) Statistics of Income program on U.S. population migration at the county level. The data tracks individual income tax filers who changed addresses from one year to the next, and reports the number of tax filers moving between counties (a proxy for households), the number of personal exemptions among those filers (a proxy for individuals), and the total adjusted gross income reported on their returns (a proxy for household income). While the IRS migration data is only currently available through 2022 (versus 2023 in Census Bureau migration data), it has the advantages of tracking movements between specific counties and revealing something about the economic status of migrating households.2

This report uses the IRS county-level migration data to track movement before and after the pandemic’s onset among U.S. metropolitan areas, which are collections of counties that approximate regional economies and labor markets.3 The analysis assigns each county in the dataset to its corresponding metro area based on the latest Census Bureau metropolitan delineations.4 An important limitation of the IRS data is that it suppresses county-to-county flows of fewer than 20 tax filers to protect taxpayer privacy. In 2021-22, for instance, the data reflects a total of 7.6 million U.S. filers moving to metropolitan counties, with the source county indicated for 5.8 million of them. This means that the county-to-county data misses 1.8 million households (or 23% of all households) moving to metropolitan counties in 2021-22. Many of these households likely moved from small, non-metropolitan counties, but the flows among metro areas charted here inevitably miss moves occurring between smaller counties in metro areas of all sizes.

Despite this limitation, the IRS data is useful for answering basic questions about domestic migration and the possible impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Focusing on the nation’s metropolitan areas, this analysis specifically asks if and how the pandemic may have altered the:

Overall level of migration within and among metro areas

Key metropolitan origins and destinations of movers

Economic character of movers, and/or their sending/receiving communities

In general, the analysis confirms that the pandemic made an impact on metropolitan migration patterns, but also finds that these changes did not significantly alter the demographic or economic trajectory of metro regions. The analysis concludes with thoughts on the implications of these patterns as the economy returns to a “new normal” in the pandemic’s aftermath.

[allproducts81]

Taking Control of My Finances: A Positive Review of Wealth Accelerator Academy+ Online Coaching

I've always known I needed to be smarter with my money, but the world of finance seemed overwhelming. Enter Wealth Accelerator Academy+ Online Coaching. This program has been a game-changer for me, and I wanted to share my experience with anyone looking to take charge of their financial future.

Building a Roadmap to Financial Freedom

The Academy+ isn't just another online course. It's a comprehensive program designed to guide you on your journey to financial freedom. They go beyond simply throwing information at you. The program starts by helping you develop a personalized financial roadmap. This roadmap considers your current financial situation, goals, and risk tolerance. With a clear direction, I finally felt empowered to make informed decisions about my money.

Learning From Seasoned Coaches and a Supportive Community

One of the biggest advantages of Wealth Accelerator Academy+ is the access to experienced coaches. These coaches aren't just there to deliver lectures; they actively guide and support you. The monthly live coaching sessions provide a platform to ask questions, address specific challenges, and receive personalized feedback. This interactive element was invaluable for me. There's also a vibrant online community of like-minded individuals. Sharing experiences and motivating each other in this group creates a powerful sense of support, keeping you accountable and engaged on your financial journey.

Practical Strategies for Real-Life Results

The Academy+ doesn't just teach theory; it equips you with practical strategies to implement in your everyday life. The program covers a wide range of topics, from debt management and cash flow improvement to passive income generation and investment strategies. I particularly liked their focus on "thinking like an abundant steward" of my money. This shift in mindset, along with the concrete tools provided, has helped me break free from unhealthy spending habits and focus on building long-term wealth.

An Investment in Your Financial Future

I won't lie; Wealth Accelerator Academy+ requires commitment. There's coursework to complete, exercises to apply, and coaching sessions to attend. But the return on investment has been incredible. Within a few months, I've seen a significant improvement in my cash flow, paid down a considerable amount of debt, and even started exploring passive income options. More importantly, I've gained the confidence and knowledge to manage my finances effectively and reach my financial goals.

If you're serious about taking control of your finances and building a secure future, I highly recommend Wealth Accelerator Academy+ Online Coaching. It's an investment that will pay off for years to come.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

An antitrust murder whodunnit: I accuse Judge Bork with the Powell Memo in the smoke-filled room.

40-some years ago, US antitrust enforcement took sick. In the years since, it has been largely comatose — right up until the very recent past, when the Biden administration began to take muscular — but very belated — action to restore a modicum of competition to the economy.

There’s a widely received narrative about what happened to antitrust law. 40+ years ago, fringe economists and other ideological entrepreneurs from the University of Chicago won the argument, publishing such a rigorous defense of monopolies as “efficient” that lawmakers, regulators and judges had no choice but to change their ways.

That is the “enlightened technocrat narrative,” and, as a narrative, you can be forgiven for assuming that it is not empirically testable. But as a trio of scholars show in “The Political Economy of the Decline of Antitrust Enforcement in the United States,” this narrative can and must be subjected to empirical scrutiny.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4011335

First, I’ll explain the authors’ conclusion, then I’ll explain the evidence that supports it. The authors conclude that the change in US antitrust enforcement wasn’t the result of reasoned argument, but rather, a mix of financial enticements and a covert influence operation.

They find that the change in antitrust enforcement didn’t arise from:

public clamor for more monopolies or less competition regulation;

campaign promises by politicians;

explicit marching from politicians to the regulators they funded;

the confirmation hearings for regulators and judges

Instead, the change in antitrust can be causally linked to an increase in lobbying, a revolving door between regulators and the industries they regulate, and lavish “educational” programs aimed at judges that included luxury holidays.

In other words, the complete reversal in antitrust enforcement in the US was not the result of better arguments, nor was it the result of democratic deliberation. Instead, it was a self-accelerating mix of bribery and propaganda, funded by big businesses, which grew even bigger as a result.

What’s more, this outcome is theoretically consistent with the Chicago School’s own orthodoxy. Under “public choice theory,” Chicago School economists predict that regulation will inevitably come under the sway of regulated industries, who will suborn their regulators to make them do their bidding, to the detriment of the public interest.

The “enlightened technocrat narrative” asks us to believe that antitrust is an exception to the tendency of regulators to be captured by the firms they are charged with regulating — especially when those firms are concentrated, making it easier for them to coordinate their policy preferences.

In truth, the whodunnit for the murder of antitrust enforcement has a pretty obvious set of perps. They subscribe to a theory that says that if the question of antitrust enforcement is up for grabs, it will be captured by big business.

As if that weren’t enough, there’s a smoking gun, the “Powell memo,” in which a corporate lawyer advised the US Chamber of Commerce to increase and harmonize its lobbying, particularly around who gets federal judgeships. That lawyer, Lewis Powell, later got a seat on the Supreme Court, after intensive lobbying, and went on to contribute to many decisions that encouraged monopoly formation.

If that’s not enough of a smoking gun, how about this one? Richard Posner — an archduke of Chicago School economics — cowrote a memo to one of Reagan’s key economist entitled “Throttling Back on Antitrust: A Practical Proposal for Deregulation.”

The memo makes the case that publicly arguing for weak antitrust would be a bad news, because it would “antagoniz[e] politically influential constituencies.” Instead, they argue for making policy through the back door, by slashing enforcement budgets and installing regulators who quietly assured them that they will not enforce antitrust.

Big American businesses had motive, means and opportunity. They told us they would do it. They told us how they would do it. They told us it was theoretically inconceivable that they wouldn’t do it. They did it. They got rich. US antitrust enforcement wasn’t beaten in the marketplace of ideas — it was slaughtered in smoke-filled back rooms.

That is the paper’s conclusion and while it might seem obvious to people who pay attention to this stuff, they offer a wealth of data to support it. Start with the political question:

Since the 1970s, no president advocated for a reduction in antitrust enforcement, no Congress voted for reduced enforcement except indirectly in obscure budget bills, and no senate knowingly confirmed nominees to the FTC or DOJ, or to the supreme court, who openly promised to reduce antitrust enforcement

Even though no one who was approved to the federal judiciary advocated for dismantling antitrust, dismantle it they did. This is especially visible at the Supreme Court, where key decisions like Illinois Brick stripped standing from nearly everyone who was harmed by monopolistic behavior, which meant that almost no one was entitled to sue, undertake discovery, and reveal evidence that could vindicate them.

Other decisions legalized formerly prohibited conduct, such as vertical monopolies, and created narrow, impossible-to-satisfy tests for when a company should be prohibited from buying its suppliers or customers. Still more decisions effectively legalized predatory pricing. And over all of it was the decision to allow companies to impose binding arbitration on their customers and workers, which ended the risk of class actions for harms from monopolistic conduct.

Lower courts took their cues from the Supremes and also narrowed and weakened antitrust. At all levels of the federal judiciary, judges got their ideology on antitrust from the Manne Seminars, luxury junkets paid for by giant American companies where judges were indoctrinated into Chicago School theories of antitrust.

https://www.npr.org/2022/09/22/1124477182/federal-judges-economics-boot-camp

At one point, a full 40% of the US federal judiciary was a Manne Seminar graduate, and after they attended, they radically changed their behavior, finding in favor of monopolies again and again:

https://www.nber.org/papers/w29788

Antitrust enforcement became a mere vestige of American policy. As firms grew bigger — and as they became more capable of abusing their market power, the number of enforcement actions declined steeply. This was made all the more urgent by deregulation in other areas, which increased the scope for abuse of market power.

The American public did not want antitrust euthanized. American trust in big business has been in freefall for decades. A 1974 poll found that 60% of Americans were in favor of increasing antitrust penalties (6% opposed this). In 1980, 64% of American said that “promoting competition” was “important, very important, or very, very important” (12% said it wasn’t important “at all”).

In 1982, 75% of Americans polled wanted the government to do more to control the activities of large companies. Not surprisingly, nearly every presidential candidate until the 1970s spoke favorably of antitrust on the campaign trail. After that, candidates just stopped mentioning it — but they didn’t campaign against it.

The list of presidents who supported muscular antitrust enforcement isn’t limited to FDR and Kennedy — it includes Truman, Eisenhower, and other right-wing figures. Reagan’s 1980 platform promised to “assur[e] through anti-trust enforcement that neither predatory competitive pricing nor price gouging of captive customers will occur. In 1988, the Bush campaign boasted that “we have filed more criminal anti-trust cases than the previous Administration.”

During their confirmation hearings, supreme court justices averred their support for antitrust: O’Connor spoke of “the key role antitrust plays in eliminating monopolies and protecting small businesses.” Souter affirmed “antitrust law’s key role in preventing the consolidation of economic power.” These sentiments were repeated by Thomas, Ginsburg, Kagan and Roberts.

And yet, all of these justices would go on to write or support opinions that dismantled antitrust. RBG wrote the Volvo Trucks decision that killed off the Robinson-Patman Act’s enforcement powers. Breyer, O’Connor, Souter, Thomas and Ginsburg gave us the Trinko decision, killing off enforcement over refusal to deal. Roberts, Souter, and Thomas gave us Twombly, which gutted private enforcement. Breyer. Roberts and Thomas signed into Italian Colors, weakening private antitrust enforcement. which further restricted private. In the unanimous State Oil decision, the Supremes raised the bar for preventing retail price maintenance. None of this was hinted at in their answers on antitrust during their confirmations.

Congress, too, played a part. The obscure wrangles over agencies’ budgets saw massive cuts to the enforcement budgets of the DoJ and the FTC, even as the Supremes were raising the evidentiary bar for antitrust enforcement, making each action vastly more costly for government agencies to pursue.

One particularly sneaky trick was allowing the FTC and DoJ to fund themselves by imposing filing fees for mergers. This was billed as a means of augmenting their budgets: the more mergers industry attempted, the more money the agencies would have. But very quickly, Congress used the existence of these fees to slash the agencies’ budgets, saying, effectively, “You don’t need public money because you get all those fees.” The agencies real budgets deflated and enforcement all but ceased.

The policy paid off…if you were a big business. The profit margins of smaller US firms have been flat or declined since 1980, while large firms enjoy a weighted average return of 1.8. Big business’s shareholders have shared in the bounty: the share of US income commanded by the top 1% grew from 10% to 19% since 1980.

American productivity grew, but wages stagnated. Before the antitrust revolution, workers’ pay rose with productivity. Male workers’ wages rose 36% in real terms from 1960–1980. From 1980–2016, their wages did not rise in real terms. Meanwhile, their foreign counterparts continued to reap benefits from improved productivity: in the UK, wages rose by 25% in real terms. In France, it was 10%.

Monopolies have inflicted real, measurable harms on the public, disproving the Chicago School’s claims that monopolies were efficient and would contribute to the public good. This is especially visible in health markets, where “unchallenged mergers in the dialysis market led to higher prices and reduced availability of dialysis facilities, which caused a 3.1 percentage point higher hospitalization rate and 1.6–2.0 percentage point lower survival rate.”

In pharma, we see runaway “killer acquisitions” — where a big company buys a potential rival and kills off its product before it can compete. Within-state hospital mergers have driven up prices 7–9% between 1996–2012.

In the mobile phone market, rampant consolidation drives $44-$65b/year in transfers from consumers to shareholders. Mergers in beer drove up prices 4–7%.

In other words, letting big business capture its regulators resulted in exactly the outcome that public choice theory predicts: more profits for big business, and worsening economic, material, and health outcomes for the public.

Those profits are mobilized into still more policy wins by big businesses. The same courts that gave us lax antitrust also gave us fewer and fewer limits on lobbying, culminating in Citizens United and the near-total incineration of US campaign finance laws. “In 1974 there were 2.3 Labor PACs for every corporate PAC. By 1976, the ratio was inverted. By 1985, there were 4.4 corporate PACs for every Labor PAC.”

An analysis of 370 $100m+ mergers from 2008–14 found that “companies that increased their general direct lobbying expenditures in the quarters before announcing a deal are significantly more likely to receive a favorable response from the antitrust authorities.”

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0929119917307356

Shareholders understand this. “The stock price response to horizontal merger announcements is higher when the bidder has lobbied more in advance.”

Lobbying is just one way to influence policy. Just as important is the revolving door, whereby regulators who make decisions favorable to industry are given well-paid jobs in that industry after their turn in office. Prior to 1970, the majority of senior FTC and DOJ personnel came out of government service, and either returned to government or retired after their terms were up. That changed in the mid-70s. Today, almost two-thirds of top FTC and DoJ enforcers go to law firms representing big business in antitrust actions or to big businesses themselves.

Rising executive compensation at large firms make this an increasingly attractive proposition. The average white-shoe law firm partner in 1970 earned twice as much an an FTC chair. That rose to 500% in the 1980s. Today it’s 1000%. Wages for FTC and DoJ enforcers have been constant since 2000, while the cost of a house in DC has quadrupled over the same period.

Like I said, the circumstantial case that big business secretly murdered antitrust enforcement in smoke-filled rooms was always strong. But this paper also provides an evidentiary record.

One fascinating wrinkle: one of the paper’s co-authors is Eric A Posner, son of Richard Posner, one of the architects of the neoliberal revolution. That strange fact is explored in detail in this week’s episode of Capitalisn’t, which is co-hosted by Luigi Zingales, another one of the paper’s authors:

https://overcast.fm/+LQuu7pjsk

[Image ID: A modified version of a Soviet propaganda cartoon called 'Capital controls the government.' An ogrish, giant business-man in a top hat with a cigar and a monocle stands before a control-box, yanking on a lever that is shaped like a golden dollar-sign. The lever operates an eject mechanism on a chair atop the control box, sending a tiny figure hurtling over the edge. The ogre holds another finger aloft, suspended between thumb and forefinger. Behind the control box are ranks of more tiny figures, awaiting their turn in the chair. The tiny figures all sport judges' powdered and curled wigs.]