#credit markets

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Double greedflation

The average APR went from 16.3 percent in 2020, as the pandemic began, to 22.8 percent in 2023, a dramatic rise after several years of relative stability. That suggests that consumers are experiencing a “double greedflation,” with the cost of goods and services going up, and then the cost of credit to afford those goods and services going up opportunistically.

-What We Owe, Kalena Thomhave

[hislop3]

Wednesday Feature: Lending Trends Still Reflecting a Tight Capital Environment

Happy Hump Day! The National Investment Center released its third quarter 2023 lending trends report and while the data is a bit old, it is reflective of current market conditions. The report is available here: NIC_Lending__Trends_Report_3Q2023 Suffice to say since I last provided an update on this subject area, things have not improved.  Capital access and credit remain tight, all sources.  The…

[travelingtwentysomething]

[sergle]

you bitches have got to watch Scavengers Reign if you haven't yet, i'm only a few episodes in and it's already completely unlike anything else i've ever seen

[padawansuggest]

Wooley: *trots up to Obi-Wan and Cody in the store with a super ugly Christmas decoration in his hands* Dad, I want this.

Obi-Wan: *about to tell him sure because he’s never paid for anything in his life*

Cody: Absolutely not, that thing is ugly and we don’t need it.

Wooley: So is Skywalker and we keep him!

Anakin: :(

Obi-Wan: LMAO

Cody: Oh my god-

Wooley: Buy it for me or I’m gonna scream.

Obi-Wan: lol just buy it for him, babe.

Cody: Why am I the one buying it?

Obi-Wan: I’m not allowed to have credit cards.

Anakin: Padme lowered my allowance :/

Wooley: I’m an actual infant, I don’t have money.

Cody: Force- fine! Put it in the cart!

[heyclickadee]

I’ll probably elaborate on this later, but the short version for why I’ve swung fully back around to, “Nah, Tech’s just still alive in canon, actually,” is basically:

1. It straight up just isn’t written as a character death, not at any point from the moment it becomes obvious he’s going to fall onwards through the rest of the show. Not even like a badly handled one. The closest analog to how this is written in animated Star Wars is still Ahsoka’s “death” at the end of Rebels season two.

2. We technically have no more confirmation, proof, processing, or closure on what happened to Tech than we did at the end of season two, and we got some hints that he might have survived the fall. It remains ambiguous. And the thing is, closure—even short, badly done closure—would be easy to add in a couple of lines if he were supposed to be dead. (For example: If they really had to switch things up last minute, “Tech would have been so proud of you,” is a no-brainer line that Hunter could have said to Omega during the epilogue. It wouldn’t have been sufficient, but it would have informed us (and the target audience of children between the ages of 8 and 12) that Tech never did make it back during the time skip and probably is gone for good. What we get instead (the goggles on the dash) can easily be recontextualized as a signal that he came back alive, and actually makes a hell of a lot more sense if he did.)

[aethersea]

devastating to go into the tag for an obscure vampire movie I've been quietly obsessed with for years to find mostly gifsets of minor characters (played by big-name actors) and review blogs saying they didn't like it :(

@ everyone who made a post saying "I liked it :)" I am blowing you a kiss. everyone who made a lovely gifset or photoset of the cinematography I am tipping my hat. that one poster that said "bro did y'all just miss the Entire Message about class and race or???" I am shaking your hand with enthusiasm there was SUCH a message about class and race

anyway everybody should watch Night Teeth and revel in glitzy flashy modern vampires in LA with me

[bed-buggier]

The marketing of Sonic 3 has been terrible, almost to a comedic degree

You have Paramount being as secretive as humanly possible to where every movie besides Sonic 3 has gotten its trailer released unless you wanna count private screenings, there's been no promotional material, and all we've had to go buy are toy leaks with packaging that makes them almost look like bootlegs with how much they recycle from 2

I'm sorry but I don't think Keanu Reeves playing Shadow the Hedgehog is enough to sell your movie lmao

[sigmabateman]

#SWAYLAKESUMMER!!!!!

[bitchesgetriches]

We’re in a New Bull Market! Should You Give One Single Fuck?

When we talk about the economy, we talk of stock market moves and unemployment rates (historically low at 3.7%) and inflation (holding steady). Yet numbers like these hide the human element involved in economics. People struggle and stress over making ends meet regardless of what the stock market is doing. Steadying inflation doesn’t mean much to someone who has barely been able to afford their grocery bill for the last year.

Celebrations over bull markets and low unemployment rates sometimes rankle, or even invalidate, the tough times normal folks experience. The financial news seems to be saying “What do you mean the economy sucks? Everything’s going great—the stock market, the unemployment rate, inflation. You must be imagining your troubles. Or it’s all your own fault.”

If you’re struggling in this economy, I can assure you it’s neither your imagination nor your fault, new bull market be damned.

Keep reading.

Did we just help you out? Join our Patreon!

[mostlysignssomeportents]

The impoverished imagination of neoliberal climate “solutions

This morning (Oct 31) at 10hPT, the Internet Archive is livestreaming my presentation on my recent book, The Internet Con.

There is only one planet in the known universe capable of sustaining human life, and it is rapidly becoming uninhabitable by humans. Clearly, this warrants bold action – but which bold action should we take?

After half a century of denial and disinformation, the business lobby has seemingly found climate religion and has joined the choir, but they have their own unique hymn: this crisis is so dire, they say, that we don't have the luxury of choosing between different ways of addressing the emergency. We have to do "all of the above" – every possible solution must be tried.

In his new book Dark PR, Grant Ennis explains that this "all of the above" strategy doesn't represent a change of heart by big business. Rather, it's part of the denial playbook that's been used to sell tobacco-cancer doubt and climate disinformation:

https://darajapress.com/publication/dark-pr-how-corporate-disinformation-harms-our-health-and-the-environment

The point of "all of the above" isn't muscular, immediate action – rather, it's a delaying tactic that creates space for "solutions" that won't work, but will generate profits. Think of how the tobacco industry used "all of the above" to sell "light" cigarettes, snuff, snus, and vaping – and delay tobacco bans, sin taxes, and business-euthanizing litigation. Today, the same playbook is used to sell EVs as an answer to the destructive legacy of the personal automobile – to the exclusion of mass transit, bikes, and 15-minute cities:

https://thewaroncars.org/2023/10/24/113-dark-pr-with-grant-ennis/

As the tobacco and car examples show, "all of the above" is never really all of the above. Pursuing "light" cigarettes to reduce cancer is incompatible with simply banning tobacco; giving everyone a personal EV is incompatible with remaking our cities for transit, cycling and walking.

When it comes to the climate emergency, "all of the above" means trying "market-based" solutions to the exclusion of directly regulating emissions, despite the poor performance of these "solutions."

The big one here is carbon offsets, which allows companies to make money by promising not to emit carbon that they would otherwise emit. The idea here is that creating a new asset class will unleash the incredible creativity of markets by harnessing the greed of elite sociopaths to the project of decarbonization, rather of the prudence of democratically accountable lawmakers.

Carbon offsets have not worked: they have been plagued by absolutely foreseeable problems that have not lessened, despite repeated attempts to mitigate them.

For starters, carbon offsets are a classic market for lemons. The cheapest way to make a carbon offset is to promise not to emit carbon you were never going to emit anyway, as when fake charities like the Nature Conservancy make millions by promising not to log forests that can't be logged because they are wildlife preserves:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/03/18/greshams-carbon-law/#papal-indulgences

Then there's the problem of monitoring carbon offsetting activity. Like, what happens when the forest you promise not to log burns down? If you're a carbon trader, the answer is "nothing." That burned-down forest can still be sold as if it were sequestering carbon, rather than venting it to the atmosphere in an out-of-control blaze:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/07/26/aggregate-demand/#murder-offsets

When you bought a plane ticket and ticked the "offset the carbon on my flight" box and paid an extra $10, I bet you thought that you were contributing to a market that incentivized a reduction in discretionary, socially useless carbon-intensive activity. But without those carbon offsets, SUVs would have all but disappeared from American roads. Carbon offsets for Tesla cars generated billions in carbon offsets for Elon Musk, and allowed SUVs to escape regulations that would otherwise have seen them pulled from the market:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/11/24/no-puedo-pagar-no-pagara/#Rat

What's more, Tesla figured out how to get double the offsets they were entitled to by pretending that they had a working battery-swap technology. This directly translated to even more SUVs on the road:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Tesla,_Inc.#Misuse_of_government_subsidies

Harnessing the profit motive to the planet's survivability might sound like a good idea, but it assumes that corporations can self-regulate their way to a better climate future. They cannot. Think of how Canada's logging industry was allowed to clearcut old-growth forests and replace them with "pines in lines" – evenly spaced, highly flammable, commercially useful tree-farms that now turn into raging forest fires every year:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/16/murder-offsets/#pulped-and-papered

The idea of "market-based" climate solutions is that certain harmful conduct should be disincentivized through taxes, rather than banned. This makes carbon offsets into a kind of modern Papal indulgence, which let you continue to sin, for a price. As the outstanding short video Murder Offsets so ably demonstrates, this is an inadequate, unserious and immoral response to the urgency of the issue:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/04/14/for-sale-green-indulgences/#killer-analogy

Offsets and other market-based climate measures aren't "all of the above" – they exclude other measures that have better track-records and lower costs, because those measures cut against the interests of the business lobby. Writing for the Law and Political Economy Project, Yale Law's Douglas Kysar gives some pointed examples:

https://lpeproject.org/blog/climate-change-and-the-neoliberal-imagination/

For example: carbon offsets rely on a notion called "contrafactual carbon," this being the imaginary carbon that might be omitted by a company if it wasn't participating in offsets. The number of credits a company gets is determined by the difference between its contrafactual emissions and its actual emissions.

But the "contrafactual" here comes from a business-as-usual world, one where the only limit on carbon emissions comes from corporate executives' voluntary actions – and not from regulation, direct action, or other limits on corporate conduct.

Kysar asks us to imagine a contrafactual that depends on "carbon upsets," rather than offsets – one where the limits on carbon come from "lawsuits, referenda, protests, boycotts, civil disobedience":

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cif-green/2010/aug/29/carbon-upsets-offsets-cap-and-trade

If we're really committed to "all of the above" as baseline for calculating offsets, why not imagine a carbon world grounded in foreseeable, evidence-based reality, like the situation in Louisiana, where a planned petrochemical plant was canceled after a lawsuit over its 13.6m tons of annual carbon emissions?

https://earthjustice.org/press/2022/louisiana-court-vacates-air-permits-for-formosas-massive-petrochemical-complex-in-cancer-alley

Rather than a tradeable market in carbon offsets, we could harness the market to reward upsets. If your group wins a lawsuit that prevents 13.6m tons of carbon emissions every year, it will get 13.6 million credits for every year that plant would have run. That would certainly drive the commercial imaginations of many otherwise disinterested parties to find carbon-reduction measures. If we're going to revive dubious medieval practices like indulgences, why not champerty, too?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champerty_and_maintenance

That is, if every path to a survivable planet must run through Goldman-Sachs, why not turn their devious minds to figuring out ways to make billions in tradeable credits by suing the pants off oil companies?

There are any number of measures that rise to the flimsy standards of evidence in support of offsets. Like, we're giving away $85/ton in free public money for carbon capture technologies, despite the lack of any credible path to these making a serious dent in the climate situation:

https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/energy-transition/072523-ira-turbocharged-carbon-capture-tax-credit-but-challenges-persist-experts

If we're willing to fund untested longshots like carbon capture, why not measures that have far better track-records? For example, there's a pretty solid correlation between the presence of women in legislatures and on corporate boards and overall reductions in carbon. I'm the last person to suggest that the problems of capitalism can be replaced by replacing half of the old white men who run the world with women, PoCs and queers – but if we're willing to hand billions to ferkakte scheme like carbon capture, why not subsidize companies that pack their boards with women, or provide campaign subsidies to women running for office? It's quite a longshot (putting Liz Truss or Marjorie Taylor-Greene on your board or in your legislature is no way to save the planet), but it's got a better evidentiary basis than carbon capture.

There's also good evidence that correlates inequality with carbon emissions, though the causal relationship is unclear. Maybe inequality lets the wealthy control policy outcomes and tilt them towards permitting high-emission/high-profit activities. Maybe inequality reduces the social cohesion needed to make decarbonization work. Maybe inequality makes it harder for green tech to find customers. Maybe inequality leads to rich people chasing status-enhancing goods (think: private jet rides) that are extremely carbon-intensive.

Whatever the reason, there's a pretty good case that radical wealth redistribution would speed up decarbonization – any "all of the above" strategy should certainly consider this one.

Kysar's written a paper on this, entitled "Ways Not to Think About Climate Change":

https://political-theory.org/resources/Documents/Kysar.Ways%20Not%20to%20Think%20About%20Climate%20Change.pdf

It's been accepted for the upcoming American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy conference on climate change:

https://political-theory.org/13257256

It's quite a bracing read! The next time someone tells you we should hand Elon Musk billions to in exchange for making it possible to legally manufacture vast fleets of SUVs because we need to try "all of the above," send them a copy of this paper.

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

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/31/carbon-upsets/#big-tradeoff

[3416]

1634 make me genuinely ill because there are just.... so few bonds in this sport where you look at them and go. that was 100% meant to happen like that and no one else could've slotted in. like yea, so many of players across the league form close bonds and friendships bc that's the nature of spending a whole part of your life sharing a common goal and space when you're like.. doing this team activity... and guys are constantly befriending ppl and moving on... but auston and mitch it's like. it's almost like THEY feel that they were supposed to have that bond... and go out of their way to reaffirm it at every turn... like they met and got along and loved each other immediately and were so excited to get to play hockey together only to NOT get to for a long while and while they waited, they ??? developed all these rituals. and these things together... their personal routines, things to communicate to each other that they have each other's backs and are building each other into their visions and superstitions and dreams, some of which we'll never know about (unless they'd so kindly like to tell us a la mitch's interview with cabbie where he says maybe some day he'll share the gifts auston's gotten him w the world. tell all book when mitch).. but their gloves and their handshakes and their warmups and even the way they walk into road games and it's jsut. like it's friendship, for sure, obviously. they get along off the ice and make each other laugh the most and have a good time, but it's also the inextricable linking of their own careers. BY THEIR OWN DOING. like they want their names jotted next to each other and that's PART of the chase for this greater goal. yes, they would have been talked about in tandem anyway bc they're out here being the best leafs ever and hitting milestones like 500 points.... 600 points... just weeks apart from each other season to season. but also it's their commitment to each other that makes them talked about too. it's commentators saying they love to play together bc they can see it. they've heard them talk about it. they watch it. "marner to matthews" "matthews to marner". they're always gonna know where each other are.... it makes me . feel. violent with love, lol. makes me feel like some things are definitely meant to be.

[maximura]

Altered States: Song Mingi x Kim Hongjoong | Creative Director/Photography by Jack Bridgland. Styling by Lisa Jarvis (2023)

[pinklacedcoffin]

꒰⠀me and who 🎀⠀⠀꒱ the mochizō to my tamako

[mallowdraws]

I did Artfight this year and fumo'd a bunch of people! I was pretty preoccupied for a lot of the month between a trip and a cross-stitch project, but I'm very happy with what I managed to get done.

Y'all better watch out next year >:3

Credits in order:

Kushim Iaohak: @dragontamer75

Ioetta Taylor: @tiamatscalybond

Duchess Serafina Agarwood: @trikey

Lottie: @meklee

Allegro: @m0ntygee

Laura Joiner: @amuseoffirebane

Charybdis: @riptidethered

Syrin: Rookrow (artfight)

Kyu: @linkyu

Fusu: AikaYu (artfight)

[ominaterthegreat]

My sister, who spent four years at Mailchimp, just got laid off yesterday. She called me sobbing to let me know she got the email. No amount of a fat severance package can fix the damage to her psyche this job did imo. Her birthday is coming up soon. So i made her this cake.

(i only decorate a cake like once every few years lol don't come for me)

She started in customer support, and sure enough was skilled and talented enough in apprenticeships with a higher up team in a different department that she was happily brought onto the team.

She ran events, improved entire workflows that saved the company thousands of dollars, delivered tasks on time and of high quality, and was highly praised by leaders of other teams and from those above her boss. She kicked ass and took names.

On that team, she spent two years experiencing bullying and discrimination for having ADHD. Yes, arguably the most common ND condition out there just about. She had to take 2 months off for mental health leave to get her ADHD diagnosis to defend herself from all the corporate bullying. She documented her boss literally making things up and her coworker refusing to communicate with her and then blaming her for things not being done how she wanted. They actively ignored all the times she went above and beyond expectations and all the times she did receive praise from other teams. I watched two corporate goons crush the confidence my sister had finally closed together for herself.

The CEO of Intuit called her and 1800 other employees that were laid off "low performers" in a public statement. A convenient 10% of Mailchimp was completely laid off. We knew this was coming because over the past year or so, Intuit has been forcing managers to label a specific percentage of people as "Does Not Meet Expectations" on year end reviews to justify letting people go, no matter how much they actually did meet expectations.

I look in the Intuit Mailchimp tags and only see one post about them Union busting. The only posts are just geared towards companies comparing and contrasting products and marketing strategies. Reddit isn't much better because the only sub on there is the official one modded by MC themselves. This isn't the biggest fire rn by any means but it's once again proof that the people behind these corporations are as soulless and evil as the corporations themselves. No matter how much good you do they will never appreciate you.

I hope the company eats shit and dies. Intuit is ruining everything people liked about MC, from the product to the culture. Fuck you.