#public provident fund interest rate | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

legalservicesworld · 2 years

Text

Calculate Public Provident Fund

PPF Calculator facilitates estimate the ability wealth advantage and adulthood quantity out of your PPF investments. Public Provident Fund is a long time funding cum tax financial savings scheme subsidized through GOI, in which the funding, hobby and adulthood quantity are tax exempted. The modern-day hobby price is 7.1%. Estimate your funding price with the assist of PPF Calculator.

What is PPF?

PPF stands for Public Provident Fund. It has been brought in 1968 for the purpose to mobilize small financial savings into an funding with affordable returns with extra blessings to shop tax. It facilitates one construct a retirement corpus. The modern-day hobby price on PPF is 7.1% compounded annually. PPF is subsidized through the authorities of India and the chance concerned may be very minimum and it gives assured chance-loose returns. Also, it falls beneath Neath EEE popularity because of this that that the quantity invested, hobby earned and adulthood quantity obtained are all tax-loose.

Opening a PPF account

It’s clean to open a PPF account. All one wishes is to publish an software shape together with KYC, cope with proof, identification proof, and signature proof. A PPF account may be opened with a Post Office or every other nationalized banks. Some personal banks also are legal to assist open PPF accounts. Amount invested in PPF account is locked in for 15 years. But there's an choice to withdraw cash from the begin of seven th yr, after finishing 6 years. One can withdraw the quantity as soon as a yr.

Minimum Tenture

PPF has a minimal tenure of 15 years which may be prolonged indefinitely in blocks of five years. Furthermore, the minimal funding in PPF account is Rs. 500 and most is Rs.1,50,000. Investments may be made in lump sum or in a most of 12 installments. Deposits right into a PPF account should be made at the least as soon as a yr for 15 years.

Does PPF Compound Hobby Annually?

The Public Provident Fund scheme is a protracted term-financial savings-cum-tax-saving device added through the National Savings Institute of the Ministry of Finance. The PPF scheme targets at mobilizing small financial savings the various investors.

The Public Provident Fund is beneath Neath the EEE tax class beneath Neath the Income Tax Act. The quantity invested, hobby earned and adulthood fee all are exempt.

Yes, the hobby on public provident budget is compounded annually. The PPF hobby is calculated month-to-month and credited on the stop of the year.

The PPF hobby charge is constant quarterly through the Ministry of Finance, Government of India from April 1st, 2016. The banks provide PPF bills on the hobby charge constant through the Government of India. The contemporary charge of hobby relevant for Q3 FY 2022-23 is 7.10%

The PPF account hobby is calculated and paid on the quantity status within side the investor’s account. The PPF scheme hobby charge is regulated through the Government of India and during the last few years the go back has been witnessing a downtrend.

PPF Calculation Formula

The hobby on PPF is calculated on the bottom stability within side the PPF Calculator account among the fifth day and the stop of the month.

If an investor deposits an quantity earlier than the fifth of every month, the investor gets hobby for that month on that deposit. Otherwise, the hobby is calculated at the preceding stability within side the PPF account

If an investor is making an investment in PPF month-to-month, then making an investment earlier than fifth or after fifth could have a marginal impact at the PPF hobby of some hundred rupees.

If an investor is making an investment in a PPF scheme in a lump sum consistent with year, then make investments earlier than the fifth of April. The hobby earned could be on greater stability for the month of Apr.

Public Provident Fund Calculation Formula

The formulation for calculating anticipated hobby and the adulthood fee is given below:

A = P [(-1)/i]

Where,

A is the adulthood quantity

P is the foremost quantity invested within side the PPF account

I is the anticipated hobby charge of go back on PPF scheme

N is the tenure for that is the quantity is invested in PPF scheme

From the above formulation we are able to finish that the go back could be better for a better funding period.

#ppf #ppf calculator #ppf account calculator #ppf interest rate calculator #ppf return calculator #ppf maturity calculator #ppf interest calculator #public provident fund calculator

0 notes

reasonsforhope · 3 months

Text

"International climate negotiations have long been haunted by a broken promise.

In the wake of collapsed negotiations at the United Nations climate conference in Copenhagen in 2009, wealthy nations, led by the United States, pledged to provide developing countries with $100 billion in climate-related aid annually by 2020.

The money was meant in part to ease tensions between the rich countries that had contributed the most to climate change historically and the poorer nations that disproportionately suffer the effects of a warming planet.

But rich countries fell short of the target in both 2020 and 2021, deepening mistrust and stymying progress during the annual United Nations climate conferences, which are known by the abbreviation COP.

A new report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, or OECD, confirms what the international organization began to suspect just before last year’s COP28: that wealthy nations finally surpassed the $100 billion goal in 2022.

And while they were two years late delivering on their promise, rich countries partially compensated for their earlier shortfalls, contributing nearly $116 billion in climate aid to developing countries in 2022, according to the latest data available.

That additional funding helps fill the roughly $27 billion gap resulting from rich countries’ failure to meet the $100 billion threshold in each of the two years prior.

“If you underachieved in the first two years, overachieving in the rest of the period is a good way to make up for that, to make amends,” said Joe Thwaites, a climate finance expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council, a U.S.-based environmental nonprofit.

Even $100 billion, however, is far lower than the developing world’s estimated need. United Nations-backed research projects that developing countries (excluding China) will need an eye-popping $2.4 trillion per year by 2030 to transition away from fossil fuels and adapt to climate change.

Serious questions also remain about the quality and accounting of the existing funding. According to the OECD report, more than two-thirds of the public finance in 2022 was provided in the form of loans rather than no-strings-attached grants.

That means developing countries are required to pay the money back, often with interest at market rates...

Such findings are likely to inform talks next week [the last week of June, 2024], as climate negotiators meet in Bonn, Germany, in preparation for COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, at the end of the year. Negotiators need to agree on a new collective goal for climate aid to developing countries this year.

So far, different countries have submitted a range of proposals, with some nations floating $1 trillion annually as an appropriate number. Wealthy countries also want to expand their ranks so that some relatively rich countries that are technically classified as “developing,” like the oil-rich states of the Persian Gulf, can contribute funds toward the goal. Historically, only countries that the United Nations designated as “developed” in the 1990s have been on the hook...

If countries continue to provide a similar level of funding for the next few years, they could make up for the shortfall. “Making up for 2020 and 2021, meeting the goal in those two years, could help rebuild a bit of trust,” Thwaites added...

The report indicated specific progress on funding for adaptation measures like sea walls and disaster-resilient infrastructure, an oft-overlooked area of climate finance. In 2021, countries pledged to double adaptation finance from the $19 billion provided in 2019 to $38 billion by 2025. According to the OECD report, adaptation funding had already risen to $32.4 billion one year after the pledge."

-via GoodGoodGood, June 20, 2024

#climate adaptation #climate crisis #climate change #global warming #developing nations #developed nations #international aid #good news #hope

203 notes · View notes

feminist-space · 1 year

Text

"Long COVID has destroyed my life

I would love nothing more than to “finally ignore COVID,” as the headline to Dr. Ashish Jha’s July 31 op-ed reads (“With a few basic steps, most of us can finally ignore COVID”). As a healthy, vaccinated, and recently boosted 35-year-old, I did what he said: I ignored COVID-19 on a weekend trip with friends in September 2022. But the infection I got as a result has all but destroyed my life.

A week after my infection, I began to experience intense fatigue, overwhelming headaches, and cognitive challenges that continue to this day. These symptoms are debilitating: I can no longer work, socialize, or travel. My finances are dire. And if I am unable to avoid another infection, my condition may deteriorate even further.

Jha wrote of long COVID “treatments” being promising. Perhaps he could clarify what treatments he is referring to, because my doctors say that there are no approved treatments for long COVID.

A recent study funded by the NIH’s RECOVER initiative showed that 10 percent of adults infected with COVID still have symptoms six months later, even with vaccination. By downplaying the prevalence and debilitating outcomes of even moderate long COVID, Jha is signing thousands of people up to the misery and despair with which I live every day.

Ezra J. Spier

Oakland, Calif.

Another view from infectious disease doctors

As infectious disease doctors, we disagree with Dr. Jha’s contention that it is time to ignore COVID-19.

Yes, being vaccinated and taking Paxlovid thankfully decrease the risk of severe disease. But only 43 percent of people age 65 and over and only 17 percent of all Americans had received an updated COVID vaccination by May 2023, and access to Paxlovid treatment is inequitable by race and insurance status.

Long-term complications of COVID can be devastating, including after second infections.

More than half a million Americans have died since the summer of 2021, when sufficient vaccine doses were available: COVID death rates in the United States continue to be double those of Canada. Termination of free tests and “commercialization” of medications as implemented by the federal government will only widen our country’s grisly COVID-related health disparities.

Inevitably, ignoring COVID leads to ignoring the slow-motion epidemic of long COVID. Standing up against such neglect, leaders like Boston Mayor Michelle Wu and Governor Maura Healey can promote meaningful measures to protect our communities: air purification in all schools and public spaces; free COVID-preventive masks (KN95 or N95, not surgical masks); tests, vaccines, and Paxlovid for all who cannot afford to buy them; and concern for and support of long COVID victims.

Dr. Julia Koehler

Boston

Dr. Regina LaRocque

Wellesley

We remain vulnerable to long COVID

Ashish Jha’s position as former White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator is a conflict of interest masquerading as a qualification for his op-ed. Researchers who study long COVID stated in a recent paper in Nature Reviews Immunology that “the oncoming burden of long COVID faced by patients, health-care providers, governments and economies is so large as to be unfathomable.” Rapid tests, which are less accurate with recent strains while PCR tests are less available, and low death rates give a false sense of security.

I agree that despite progress, more buildings need the air filtration and ventilation that would make public life safer. But Jha omits our vulnerability to long COVID after even mild infections, its devastating effects, and higher death rates for hospital-acquired COVID-19, combined with a lack of collective protection in health care settings with unmasked, untested people who prefer to ignore COVID-19.

Aside from advocating vaccines, he describes an everyone-for-themselves approach, not mentioning responsibility to protect others or access to essentials.

Jha dines in a restaurant with his friends while patients even in leading cancer hospitals are forced into Russian roulette, thanks to this approach.

Kathryn Nichols

Cambridge

Vigilance is necessary to prevent long COVID

While I understand the desire to promote optimism amid the ongoing pandemic, I am deeply concerned about the potential consequences of downplaying the importance of COVID precautions and the significant risk of long COVID. As a person living with long COVID for the last 16 months despite being vaccinated and boosted, I have experienced post-exertional malaise, fatigue, headaches, joint and muscle pain, cognitive dysfunction, and more symptoms that have continued to today. I have tried numerous medicines, supplements, and even participated in a clinical trial, only to find limited relief from the persistent effects of this virus.

Such a stance overlooks the reality that millions more people could end up with long COVID if we fail to remain vigilant in our efforts to combat the virus. Long COVID is a devastating consequence of this virus, and we cannot rely solely on vaccinations to end the pandemic. Even with widespread vaccination, the risk of contracting long COVID remains high. A recent study funded by the NIH’s RECOVER initiative showed that 10 percent of adults infected with COVID still have symptoms six months later. Minimizing the significance of long COVID not only neglects the suffering of long-haulers but also risks undermining public health efforts to control the spread of the virus.

By raising awareness about the risk of long COVID, media outlets can play a pivotal role in educating the public and promoting continued vigilance. Responsible reporting on the enduring impact of long COVID can serve as a reminder that the pandemic is far from over and that we must remain committed to taking necessary precautions to protect ourselves and others. Highlighting the struggles of long COVID survivors and the lack of proven treatments can spur further research and medical advancements in addressing this condition. Empathy and support for those living with long COVID are essential in paving the way for better understanding, compassionate care, and better health outcomes for everyone as COVID rates increase again this summer.

Travis Hardy

Norwalk, Conn.

Link https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/08/05/opinion/cant-ignore-long-covid-jha/

#covid #long covid #wear a mask #please wear a mask #the pandemic isn't over

406 notes · View notes

sauntervaguelydown · 5 months

Text

TWO YEARS AGO, by a series of strange coincidences, I found myself attending a garden party at Westminster Abbey. I was a bit uncomfortable. It’s not that other guests weren’t pleasant and amicable, and Father Graeme, who had organized the party, was nothing if not a gracious and charming host. But I felt more than a little out of place. At one point, Father Graeme intervened, saying that there was someone by a nearby fountain whom I would certainly want to meet. She turned out to be a trim, well-appointed young woman who, he explained, was an attorney—“but more of the activist kind. She works for a foundation that provides legal support for anti-poverty groups in London. You’ll probably have a lot to talk about.”

We chatted. She told me about her job. I told her I had been involved for many years with the global justice movement—“anti-globalization movement,” as it was usually called in the media. She was curious: she’d of course read a lot about Seattle, Genoa, the tear gas and street battles, but … well, had we really accomplished anything by all of that?

“Actually,” I said, “I think it’s kind of amazing how much we did manage to accomplish in those first couple of years.”

“For example?”

“Well, for example, we managed to almost completely destroy the IMF.”

As it happened, she didn’t actually know what the IMF was, so I offered that the International Monetary Fund basically acted as the world’s debt enforcers—“You might say, the high-finance equivalent of the guys who come to break your legs.” I launched into historical background, explaining how, during the ’70s oil crisis, OPEC countries ended up pouring so much of their newfound riches into Western banks that the banks couldn’t figure out where to invest the money; how Citibank and Chase therefore began sending agents around the world trying to convince Third World dictators and politicians to take out loans (at the time, this was called “go-go banking”); how they started out at extremely low rates of interest that almost immediately skyrocketed to 20 percent or so due to tight U.S. money policies in the early ’80s; how, during the ’80s and ’90s, this led to the Third World debt crisis; how the IMF then stepped in to insist that, in order to obtain refinancing, poor countries would be obliged to abandon price supports on basic foodstuffs, or even policies of keeping strategic food reserves, and abandon free health care and free education; how all of this had led to the collapse of all the most basic supports for some of the poorest and most vulnerable people on earth.

I spoke of poverty, of the looting of public resources, the collapse of societies, endemic violence, malnutrition, hopelessness, and broken lives.

“But what was your position?” the lawyer asked.

“About the IMF? We wanted to abolish it.”

“No, I mean, about the Third World debt.”

“Oh, we wanted to abolish that too. The immediate demand was to stop the IMF from imposing structural adjustment policies, which were doing all the direct damage, but we managed to accomplish that surprisingly quickly. The more long-term aim was debt amnesty. Something along the lines of the biblical Jubilee. As far as we were concerned,” I told her, “thirty years of money flowing from the poorest countries to the richest was quite enough.”

“But,” she objected, as if this were self-evident, “they’d borrowed the money! Surely one has to pay one’s debts.”

It was at this point that I realized this was going to be a very different sort of conversation than I had originally anticipated. Where to start? I could have begun by explaining how these loans had originally been taken out by unelected dictators who placed most of it directly in their Swiss bank accounts, and ask her to contemplate the justice of insisting that the lenders be repaid, not by the dictator, or even by his cronies, but by literally taking food from the mouths of hungry children. Or to think about how many of these poor countries had actually already paid back what they’d borrowed three or four times now, but that through the miracle of compound interest, it still hadn’t made a significant dent in the principal. […]

But there was a more basic problem: the very assumption that debts have to be repaid. Actually, the remarkable thing about the statement “one has to pay one’s debts” is that even according to standard economic theory, it isn’t true. A lender is supposed to accept a certain degree of risk. If all loans, no matter how idiotic, were still retrievable—if there were no bankruptcy laws, for instance—the results would be disastrous. What reason would lenders have not to make a stupid loan?

[…] For several days afterward, that phrase kept resonating in my head. “Surely one has to pay one’s debts.” The reason it’s so powerful is that it’s not actually an economic statement: it’s a moral statement. After all, isn’t paying one’s debts what morality is supposed to be all about? Giving people what is due them. Accepting one’s responsibilities. Fulfilling one’s obligations to others, just as one would expect them to fulfill their obligations to you. What could be a more obvious example of shirking one’s responsibilities than reneging on a promise, or refusing to pay a debt?

It was that very apparent self-evidence, I realized, that made the statement so insidious. This was the kind of line that could make terrible things appear utterly bland and unremarkable. This may sound strong, but it’s hard not to feel strongly about such matters once you’ve witnessed the effects. I had. For almost two years, I had lived in the highlands of Madagascar. Shortly before I arrived, there had been an outbreak of malaria. It was a particularly virulent outbreak because malaria had been wiped out in highland Madagascar many years before, so that, after a couple of generations, most people had lost their immunity. The problem was, it took money to maintain the mosquito eradication program, since there had to be periodic tests to make sure mosquitoes weren’t starting to breed again and spraying campaigns if it was discovered that they were. Not a lot of money. But owing to IMF-imposed austerity programs, the government had to cut the monitoring program. Ten thousand people died. I met young mothers grieving for lost children. One might think it would be hard to make a case that the loss of ten thousand human lives is really justified in order to ensure that Citibank wouldn’t have to cut its losses on one irresponsible loan that wasn’t particularly important to its balance sheet anyway. But here was a perfectly decent woman—one who worked for a charitable organization, no less—who took it as self-evident that it was. After all, they owed the money, and surely one has to pay one’s debts.

Debt, the First 5000 Years

51 notes · View notes

scotianostra · 4 months

Text

12th June 1997 saw The island of Eigg pass into community ownership when it was purchased by the Eigg Heritage Trust.

After years of instability, neglect and lack of secure tenure, the Isle of Eigg Heritage Trust was able to purchase the island on, largely due to the generosity of around ten thousand members of the general public

The Hebridean island of Eigg is second to St Kilda as the most famous of the smaller Scotttish isles. While St Kilda is renowned for its extinction as a place of human settlement, Eigg is celebrated for its rebirth. After overthrowing its eccentric, authoritarian owner two decades ago, this 31 sq km (12 sq mile) patch of moor and mountain was reborn as what is sometimes mockingly called the People’s Republic of Eigg.

This triumph of David versus Goliath has forged an apparently inspirational, sustainable community of 100 people.

A series of owners tried unsuccessfully to run some sort of business on Eigg during the latter part of the 20th century, from the Welsh Farmer whose Hereford cattle promptly died of bracken poisoning. Disheartened, he got rid of Eigg for £110,000 in 1971 to Bernard Farnham-Smith, self-styled naval commander, head of an English charity that wanted to run the island as a school for disabled boys, by 1973 the Eigg’s own school had only one pupil. Rather more successful was eccentric Keith Schoenberg, a dashing, Yorkshire-born businessman and former Olympic bobsleigher, acquired Eigg.

He was a charming, persuasive adventurer, who, over the next 20 years endeared himself to the guests by allowing them to perch on the running board as he drove them to beach picnics or moonlit games of hockey. One failed marriage after the other ended with him reluctantly having to sell the island in 1992 in his divorce settlement, in a surprise move he ended up bidding and became sole owner of Eigg, this didn’t go down well with the Islanders who were tiring of him, culminating in a fire in sheds on Eigg’s pier, with Schellenberg’s Roller inside. Police arrived but noone was ever brought to justice for the arson attack, maybe the Polis were just happy to get off the island alive rather than ending up in a wooden effigy atop a bonfire! “It was once the laird’s factor [his estate manager] who went about burning people out. Now it seems OK to burn out the laird himself,” fumed Schellenberg.

By 1995 he had enough and put the island up for sale, but refused to sell to the population, it should really be of no surprise that the knew owner seemed more eccentric than the previous one, self style Professor Gotthilf Christian Eckhard Oesterle was a fire-worshipping German artist and self-styled “professor” who went by the name of Maruma having read the new name in a pool of water in Geneva.

He declared it was impossible to own Eigg and vowed to improve opportunities for the community, build a swimming pool, and replace the dirty diesel generators that provided electricity with an integrated system of wind and solar power. The press discovered that, unfortunately, Maruma was not quite what he seemed: he was unknown in the art world, he wasn’t a proper professor, and he had used Eigg as security for a £300,000 loan at a punitive 20% interest rate. He promised to remove the island’s rusty old cars, but a pile of wrecks soon accumulated by the pier: locals dubbed it “the Maruma centre”. In July 1996, the island was put up for sale again, at an inflated price of £2m.

The Islanders Trust rthrew themselves into raising the asking price. . The story of the islanders who wanted to buy their own island was portrayed as a jolly romp in the style of Compton Mackenzie’s Whisky Galore, in which Hebridean islanders rebel against British bureaucrats. Eigg folk didn’t particularly relish this stereotype, but it captured imaginations and raised money.

Donations began flowing in at the rate of £1,000 per post bag; soon it was £30,000 per bag. Concerts took place in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Tyrone – and even Detroit – to raise funds. A mystery benefactor, a woman from northern England whose identity remains secret. gave £900,000. Most donations came from England. Outsiders were shocked by the feudalism that the islanders endured – the owners even decided which of them, if any, could eat Eigg’s seaweed – and worried about the possible fate of its pristine environment. The wildlife trusts, including the Scottish Wildlife Trust, were particularly effective at mobilising their members to help Eigg.

Meanwhile, the island’s Trust feared that Maruma’s German estate agent would sell Eigg to another international client. The agent described the Scottish islands on his books as “the Van Goghs” of 120 personally inspected paradises: “There is a sense of romance in buying islands. It is the ultimate purchase you can make, a complete miniature world of which you can be king.” Maruma’s creditor, a German clothing exporter, finally put the islanders out of their misery. After Maruma defaulted on his £300,000 loan, the creditor used the Scottish courts to force Eigg’s sale. His solicitors accepted the islanders’ offer of £1.5m on 4 April 1997. Finally, the people of Eigg owned their island.

Eigg has been hailed as Scotland’s most Eco-Friendly Island and the community trust are doing a great job of running a successful business, which includes offering accommodation, courses and working holidays for volunteers, you can read more about the Island on their website here. http://www.isleofeigg.org/

#scotland #scottish #history #Small Isles #inner hebrides #island community

21 notes · View notes

covid-safer-hotties · 2 days

Text

Also preserved on our archive

by Betsy Ladyzhets

She is part of an administration that many advocates believe turned its back on COVID-19. Still, some see more hope in a potential Harris presidency.

In early August, the newly minted Kamala Harris campaign posted a job opportunity: disability engagement director. The director would meet with disability communities across the United States, build relationships with disability advocates, and help people participate in campaign events.

Some Long COVID advocates expressed excitement for the role on social media, and hoped that it would be filled by someone familiar with their disease. For these advocates, the disability engagement director is part of a broader opportunity presented by Harris’ move to the top of the ticket: to make their case for national recognition. For others disillusioned by the Biden administration’s response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, however, the campaign has a higher bar to clear before they will support Harris.

Advocates say that people with Long COVID, a potentially debilitating chronic disease that can impact all parts of the body, represent a growing voting bloc in this year’s presidential election. Leaders from Long COVID advocacy groups and the broader disability community are considering how to make their case to Harris’ staff, with a particular interest in Anastasia Somoza — a disability advocate who was hired for the engagement director role — and Tim Walz, Harris’ running mate who has championed Long COVID research as governor of Minnesota.

“VP Harris is part of an administration that has turned its back on public health,” said Karyn Bishof, founder and president of the COVID-19 Longhauler Advocacy Project, in an email. However, Bishof added, Harris’ “track record suggests that she could prioritize the well-being of those most affected [by Long COVID], particularly women and marginalized communities, and perhaps push for more honest and accessible education and care.” Bishof pointed to Harris’ experience supporting health care and women’s rights and her selection of Walz as reasons for optimism about Long COVID organizing under a potential Harris administration.

One recent review paper found over 400 million people have developed Long COVID worldwide, costing an estimated $1 trillion to the global economy. About 18% of U.S. adults have experienced the disease, with higher rates among women and LGBTQ+ people, and 1 in 4 people currently living with it experience “significant activity limitations,” according to surveys from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Many can no longer work, attend school, or engage with their communities. And the numbers grow with every new COVID-19 wave.

Some people with Long COVID have shared these experiences with politicians and in the media as they organize for scientific research, health care, and social support. At a Senate committee hearing in January, Long COVID advocates packed the chamber and encouraged senators to attend with phone campaigns. The hearing contributed to new legislation introduced this summer that would provide over $10 billion in funding for research and health care.

Scott Hugo, a housing justice attorney with Long COVID, wrote an open letter to the Harris campaign asking it to recognize this growing population. In an interview, he explained the connection he sees between the campaign’s message of supporting vulnerable members of society and the struggles people with Long COVID face to find medical care, access government services, and educate their loved ones about the disease. By publicly discussing Long COVID, Harris could inspire people in this community to vote and organize when they were previously apathetic about the election, he suggested.

“None of us are disposable, and I think that’s what the Democratic Party understands,” Hugo said. His message to the Harris campaign: “You want us in your coalition, and you need us in that coalition to win.”

Somoza and the campaign’s press team did not provide comments for this story.

#mask up #covid #pandemic #covid 19 #wear a mask #public health #coronavirus #sars cov 2 #still coviding #wear a respirator

9 notes · View notes

dailyanarchistposts · 19 days

Text

B.2.2 Does the state have subsidiary functions?

Yes, it does. While, as discussed in the last section, the state is an instrument to maintain class rule this does not mean that it is limited to just defending the social relationships in a society and the economic and political sources of those relationships. No state has ever left its activities at that bare minimum. As well as defending the rich, their property and the specific forms of property rights they favoured, the state has numerous other subsidiary functions.

What these are has varied considerably over time and space and, consequently, it would be impossible to list them all. However, why it does is more straight forward. We can generalise two main forms of subsidiary functions of the state. The first one is to boost the interests of the ruling elite either nationally or internationally beyond just defending their property. The second is to protect society against the negative effects of the capitalist market. We will discuss each in turn and, for simplicity and relevance, we will concentrate on capitalism (see also section D.1).

The first main subsidiary function of the state is when it intervenes in society to help the capitalist class in some way. This can take obvious forms of intervention, such as subsidies, tax breaks, non-bid government contracts, protective tariffs to old, inefficient, industries, giving actual monopolies to certain firms or individuals, bailouts of corporations judged by state bureaucrats as too important to let fail, and so on. However, the state intervenes far more than that and in more subtle ways. Usually it does so to solve problems that arise in the course of capitalist development and which cannot, in general, be left to the market (at least initially). These are designed to benefit the capitalist class as a whole rather than just specific individuals, companies or sectors.

These interventions have taken different forms in different times and include state funding for industry (e.g. military spending); the creation of social infrastructure too expensive for private capital to provide (railways, motorways); the funding of research that companies cannot afford to undertake; protective tariffs to protect developing industries from more efficient international competition (the key to successful industrialisation as it allows capitalists to rip-off consumers, making them rich and increasing funds available for investment); giving capitalists preferential access to land and other natural resources; providing education to the general public that ensures they have the skills and attitude required by capitalists and the state (it is no accident that a key thing learned in school is how to survive boredom, being in a hierarchy and to do what it orders); imperialist ventures to create colonies or client states (or protect citizen’s capital invested abroad) in order to create markets or get access to raw materials and cheap labour; government spending to stimulate consumer demand in the face of recession and stagnation; maintaining a “natural” level of unemployment that can be used to discipline the working class, so ensuring they produce more, for less; manipulating the interest rate in order to try and reduce the effects of the business cycle and undermine workers’ gains in the class struggle.

These actions, and others like it, ensures that a key role of the state within capitalism “is essentially to socialise risk and cost, and to privatise power and profit.” Unsurprisingly, “with all the talk about minimising the state, in the OECD countries the state continues to grow relative to GNP.” [Noam Chomsky, Rogue States, p. 189] Hence David Deleon:

“Above all, the state remains an institution for the continuance of dominant socioeconomic relations, whether through such agencies as the military, the courts, politics or the police … Contemporary states have acquired … less primitive means to reinforce their property systems [than state violence — which is always the means of last, often first, resort]. States can regulate, moderate or resolve tensions in the economy by preventing the bankruptcies of key corporations, manipulating the economy through interest rates, supporting hierarchical ideology through tax benefits for churches and schools, and other tactics. In essence, it is not a neutral institution; it is powerfully for the status quo. The capitalist state, for example, is virtually a gyroscope centred in capital, balancing the system. If one sector of the economy earns a level of profit, let us say, that harms the rest of the system — such as oil producers’ causing public resentment and increased manufacturing costs — the state may redistribute some of that profit through taxation, or offer encouragement to competitors.” [“Anarchism on the origins and functions of the state: some basic notes”, Reinventing Anarchy, pp. 71–72]

In other words, the state acts to protect the long-term interests of the capitalist class as a whole (and ensure its own survival) by protecting the system. This role can and does clash with the interests of particular capitalists or even whole sections of the ruling class (see section B.2.6). But this conflict does not change the role of the state as the property owners’ policeman. Indeed, the state can be considered as a means for settling (in a peaceful and apparently independent manner) upper-class disputes over what to do to keep the system going.

This subsidiary role, it must be stressed, is no accident, It is part and parcel capitalism. Indeed, “successful industrial societies have consistently relied on departures from market orthodoxies, while condemning their victims [at home and abroad] to market discipline.” [Noam Chomsky, World Orders, Old and New, p. 113] While such state intervention grew greatly after the Second World War, the role of the state as active promoter of the capitalist class rather than just its passive defender as implied in capitalist ideology (i.e. as defender of property) has always been a feature of the system. As Kropotkin put it:

“every State reduces the peasants and the industrial workers to a life of misery, by means of taxes, and through the monopolies it creates in favour of the landlords, the cotton lords, the railway magnates, the publicans, and the like … we need only to look round, to see how everywhere in Europe and America the States are constituting monopolies in favour of capitalists at home, and still more in conquered lands [which are part of their empires].” [Evolution and Environment, p. 97]

By “monopolies,” it should be noted, Kropotkin meant general privileges and benefits rather than giving a certain firm total control over a market. This continues to this day by such means as, for example, privatising industries but providing them with state subsidies or by (mis-labelled) “free trade” agreements which impose protectionist measures such as intellectual property rights on the world market.

All this means that capitalism has rarely relied on purely economic power to keep the capitalists in their social position of dominance (either nationally, vis-à-vis the working class, or internationally, vis-à-vis competing foreign elites). While a “free market” capitalist regime in which the state reduces its intervention to simply protecting capitalist property rights has been approximated on a few occasions, this is not the standard state of the system — direct force, i.e. state action, almost always supplements it.

This is most obviously the case during the birth of capitalist production. Then the bourgeoisie wants and uses the power of the state to “regulate” wages (i.e. to keep them down to such levels as to maximise profits and force people attend work regularly), to lengthen the working day and to keep the labourer dependent on wage labour as their own means of income (by such means as enclosing land, enforcing property rights on unoccupied land, and so forth). As capitalism is not and has never been a “natural” development in society, it is not surprising that more and more state intervention is required to keep it going (and if even this was not the case, if force was essential to creating the system in the first place, the fact that it latter can survive without further direct intervention does not make the system any less statist). As such, “regulation” and other forms of state intervention continue to be used in order to skew the market in favour of the rich and so force working people to sell their labour on the bosses terms.

This form of state intervention is designed to prevent those greater evils which might threaten the efficiency of a capitalist economy or the social and economic position of the bosses. It is designed not to provide positive benefits for those subject to the elite (although this may be a side-effect). Which brings us to the other kind of state intervention, the attempts by society, by means of the state, to protect itself against the eroding effects of the capitalist market system.

Capitalism is an inherently anti-social system. By trying to treat labour (people) and land (the environment) as commodities, it has to break down communities and weaken eco-systems. This cannot but harm those subject to it and, as a consequence, this leads to pressure on government to intervene to mitigate the most damaging effects of unrestrained capitalism. Therefore, on one side there is the historical movement of the market, a movement that has not inherent limit and that therefore threatens society’s very existence. On the other there is society’s natural propensity to defend itself, and therefore to create institutions for its protection. Combine this with a desire for justice on behalf of the oppressed along with opposition to the worse inequalities and abuses of power and wealth and we have the potential for the state to act to combat the worse excesses of the system in order to keep the system as a whole going. After all, the government “cannot want society to break up, for it would mean that it and the dominant class would be deprived of the sources of exploitation.” [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 25]

Needless to say, the thrust for any system of social protection usually comes from below, from the people most directly affected by the negative effects of capitalism. In the face of mass protests the state may be used to grant concessions to the working class in cases where not doing so would threaten the integrity of the system as a whole. Thus, social struggle is the dynamic for understanding many, if not all, of the subsidiary functions acquired by the state over the years (this applies to pro-capitalist functions as these are usually driven by the need to bolster the profits and power of capitalists at the expense of the working class).

State legislation to set the length of the working day is an obvious example this. In the early period of capitalist development, the economic position of the capitalists was secure and, consequently, the state happily ignored the lengthening working day, thus allowing capitalists to appropriate more surplus value from workers and increase the rate of profit without interference. Whatever protests erupted were handled by troops. Later, however, after workers began to organise on a wider and wider scale, reducing the length of the working day became a key demand around which revolutionary socialist fervour was developing. In order to defuse this threat (and socialist revolution is the worst-case scenario for the capitalist), the state passed legislation to reduce the length of the working day.

Initially, the state was functioning purely as the protector of the capitalist class, using its powers simply to defend the property of the few against the many who used it (i.e. repressing the labour movement to allow the capitalists to do as they liked). In the second period, the state was granting concessions to the working class to eliminate a threat to the integrity of the system as a whole. Needless to say, once workers’ struggle calmed down and their bargaining position reduced by the normal workings of market (see section B.4.3), the legislation restricting the working day was happily ignored and became “dead laws.”

This suggests that there is a continuing tension and conflict between the efforts to establish, maintain, and spread the “free market” and the efforts to protect people and society from the consequences of its workings. Who wins this conflict depends on the relative strength of those involved (as does the actual reforms agreed to). Ultimately, what the state concedes, it can also take back. Thus the rise and fall of the welfare state — granted to stop more revolutionary change (see section D.1.3), it did not fundamentally challenge the existence of wage labour and was useful as a means of regulating capitalism but was “reformed” (i.e. made worse, rather than better) when it conflicted with the needs of the capitalist economy and the ruling elite felt strong enough to do so.

Of course, this form of state intervention does not change the nature nor role of the state as an instrument of minority power. Indeed, that nature cannot help but shape how the state tries to implement social protection and so if the state assumes functions it does so as much in the immediate interest of the capitalist class as in the interest of society in general. Even where it takes action under pressure from the general population or to try and mend the harm done by the capitalist market, its class and hierarchical character twists the results in ways useful primarily to the capitalist class or itself. This can be seen from how labour legislation is applied, for example. Thus even the “good” functions of the state are penetrated with and dominated by the state’s hierarchical nature. As Malatesta forcefully put it:

“The basic function of government … is always that of oppressing and exploiting the masses, of defending the oppressors and the exploiters … It is true that to these basic functions … other functions have been added in the course of history … hardly ever has a government existed … which did not combine with its oppressive and plundering activities others which were useful … to social life. But this does not detract from the fact that government is by nature oppressive … and that it is in origin and by its attitude, inevitably inclined to defend and strengthen the dominant class; indeed it confirms and aggravates the position … [I]t is enough to understand how and why it carries out these functions to find the practical evidence that whatever governments do is always motivated by the desire to dominate, and is always geared to defending, extending and perpetuating its privileges and those of the class of which it is both the representative and defender.” [Op. Cit., pp. 23–4]

This does not mean that these reforms should be abolished (the alternative is often worse, as neo-liberalism shows), it simply recognises that the state is not a neutral body and cannot be expected to act as if it were. Which, ironically, indicates another aspect of social protection reforms within capitalism: they make for good PR. By appearing to care for the interests of those harmed by capitalism, the state can obscure it real nature:

“A government cannot maintain itself for long without hiding its true nature behind a pretence of general usefulness; it cannot impose respect for the lives of the privileged if it does not appear to demand respect for all human life; it cannot impose acceptance of the privileges of the few if it does not pretend to be the guardian of the rights of all.” [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 24]

Obviously, being an instrument of the ruling elite, the state can hardly be relied upon to control the system which that elite run. As we discuss in the next section, even in a democracy the state is run and controlled by the wealthy making it unlikely that pro-people legislation will be introduced or enforced without substantial popular pressure. That is why anarchists favour direct action and extra-parliamentary organising (see sections J.2 and J.5 for details). Ultimately, even basic civil liberties and rights are the product of direct action, of “mass movements among the people” to “wrest these rights from the ruling classes, who would never have consented to them voluntarily.” [Rocker, Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 75]

Equally obviously, the ruling elite and its defenders hate any legislation it does not favour — while, of course, remaining silent on its own use of the state. As Benjamin Tucker pointed out about the “free market” capitalist Herbert Spencer, “amid his multitudinous illustrations … of the evils of legislation, he in every instance cites some law passed ostensibly at least to protect labour, alleviating suffering, or promote the people’s welfare… But never once does he call attention to the far more deadly and deep-seated evils growing out of the innumerable laws creating privilege and sustaining monopoly.” [The Individualist Anarchists, p. 45] Such hypocrisy is staggering, but all too common in the ranks of supporters of “free market” capitalism.

Finally, it must be stressed that none of these subsidiary functions implies that capitalism can be changed through a series of piecemeal reforms into a benevolent system that primarily serves working class interests. To the contrary, these functions grow out of, and supplement, the basic role of the state as the protector of capitalist property and the social relations they generate — i.e. the foundation of the capitalist’s ability to exploit. Therefore reforms may modify the functioning of capitalism but they can never threaten its basis.

In summary, while the level and nature of statist intervention on behalf of the employing classes may vary, it is always there. No matter what activity it conducts beyond its primary function of protecting private property, what subsidiary functions it takes on, the state always operates as an instrument of the ruling class. This applies even to those subsidiary functions which have been imposed on the state by the general public — even the most popular reform will be twisted to benefit the state or capital, if at all possible. This is not to dismiss all attempts at reform as irrelevant, it simply means recognising that we, the oppressed, need to rely on our own strength and organisations to improve our circumstances.

7 notes · View notes

justinspoliticalcorner · 22 days

Text

Gabriel Scheffler and Daniel Walters at Can We Still Govern?

Why is the federal government so unpopular? For many Americans, the answer to this question appears self-evident—the government is unpopular simply because it does a bad job. As law professor Peter Schuck writes, “across many different policy domains, the public perceives poor governmental performance – and generally speaking, the public is correct in this view.” Another prominent perspective focuses on ideological movements, primarily (though not exclusively) on the political right, that for decades have worked to sow distrust in government through anti-government rhetoric and actions designed to undermine government’s effectiveness. Although there is some truth to both of these perspectives, they do not tell the whole story. Another major factor is that even when the government is effective in providing benefits or addressing social problems, few Americans understand its achievements. For instance, consider President Joseph R. Biden’s signature legislation, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which delivers historic investments in combatting climate change, curbs prescription drug prices, and expands subsidies to obtain health insurance. These are undeniably important achievements. Yet public opinion surveys have consistently shown that most Americans have no idea what this law does or how it will benefit them. Nor is this an isolated incident. For years, polling found a lack of awareness of President Barack Obama’s signature legislation, the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), which represented the largest expansion in health insurance coverage since the enactment of Medicaid and Medicare and drove America’s uninsured rate to historic lows. It was only when Republicans came close to repealing the ACA in 2017 that enough public support emerged to save the law—barely. Government also succeeds in other quotidian yet important ways, ranging from protecting Americans from airline and traffic accidents to ensuring clean air to funding the infrastructure and investments that enable the local weather report. Yet most of us tend to take these achievements for granted or to overlook them entirely. Why are more Americans not aware of the ways that government succeeds? And why does the government not do more to make the public aware of its successes?

As we argue in a recent article in the Wisconsin Law Review, an important part of the explanation is that Americans are not tuned into where most of the work of government is being done: the collection of agencies known as the “administrative state.” The administrative state comprises the agencies that deliver or oversee public benefits and services—for example, the Postal Service, the Social Security Administration, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services—and the agencies that regulate industry to promote safety, health, and welfare—such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission.

[...] Second, agency actions themselves are often designed or implemented in ways that obscure what agencies are doing or what role they are playing. For instance, despite numerous government initiatives designed to encourage agencies to use simple and straightforward language, many regulations (and accompanying explanations of these regulations) are still incomprehensible to the general public. This is in part due to the incentives created by administrative law, which places no limits on the information parties can submit in the regulatory process. This creates incentives for both agencies and affected interest groups to flood the rulemaking process with excessive information.

[...] Yet, we believe agencies can and should do more to inform the public about their substantive expertise, the benefits they provide, and how to participate in administrative processes. New Deal programs such as the Works Progress Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps once employed millions of Americans and built infrastructure all around the country that is still in use today proudly branding such projects as the work of government agencies. Tellingly, recent research suggests that such programs had a greater political impact when the government directly hired workers, making the programs more traceable to the government, than when they merely subsidized private companies’ hiring of workers.

Today, at the very least, agencies can reduce their reliance on private contractors, write regulatory preambles in ways that are easier for the public to understand, and do more to proactively solicit the public’s participation in the regulatory process. Congress and the judiciary should also consider scaling back some of the legal constraints that prevent agencies from communicating effectively with the public or that encourage agencies to make their actions less salient and traceable. These efforts could include revisiting and perhaps repealing laws targeting agency “propaganda,” which in some cases are arguably overbroad, as well as more general administrative law doctrines that have the effect of chilling agency communications. If the Supreme Court is unwilling to abandon the major questions doctrine altogether, it could, at the very least, cease relying on agencies’ communications to the public as indicia of “majorness,” which has the effect of incentivizing them to downplay their own actions. Outside groups such as the American Bar Association can do more to reward civil servants’ accomplishments and to inform the public about the non-political nature of the work they do.

Gabriel Scheffler and Daniel Walters co-wrote in Dan Moynihan’s Can We Still Govern? Substack about how Americans are often unaware of the full benefits of government agencies and administrative policy.

#Regulatory Powers #Government

9 notes · View notes

godslush · 8 months

Text

Where SlashGirl.EXE just exists to be a general denizen of the world, TokeiWoman.EXE has more of a narrative direction.

I doubt I would ever get around to doing something more complete with this idea, but this is the general gist of her arc, for the time being.

================================================

It’s any other day, and Lan and his buddies head out to do typical after-school kid things. However, along the way, they happen to pass by a HUGE demonstration at large corporate building. They learn from attendees that the company inside (Zenith Hyperprocessing) had installed a program/NetNavi to centralize a large portion of HR and finances across multiple subsidiary tech companies, which in turn lost them their jobs (or jobs of family members and/or NetNavis working Web-side) and they're protesting it, to the company's deaf ears.

This is seen as a mild annoyance by the general public at most, but word gets out that some of the displaced workers have banded together a fund where they'd pay a good amount to anyone who can break into Zenith's system to permanently delete that program and get them their jobs back... and several established 'villain' Operators feel this is a great way to make a quick buck at the expense of a large corporation.

However, Zenith’s position gives it the backing of the government, and they call any city NetBattlers to help defend it, citing the damage that losing the program would cause to the many other jobs/livelihoods of the people still working at the companies under its jurisdiction. So the city NetBattlers and their NetNavis form a sort of perimeter around Zenith’s central server, stopping some of the opportunists. However, a few of the 'evil' Navis get through the blockade.... only for their Operators to suddenly lose contact with their Navis completely.

After that incident, some time passes, when suddenly the 'program' starts to act... strangely, doing things that are not to it’s owner company's bottom line interests, which causes a bit of a ruckus. The authorities in control can't seem to get in to deal with it due to the digital defenses set up, but don't want to unplug or delete it completely right off the bat due to the potential dangers to the mainframe, and the costs that would incur, but they're worried that the NetNavis that went 'missing' weren't deleted, and somehow were corrupting the program from within the program's bubble of inaccessible influence.

So city NetBattlers are called in again to find the root of the problem, joined by official ones, and once within the strange anti-communication zone, MegaMan DOES manage to break defenses to find Tokei’s true body. He discovers that she had managed to freeze and capture any NetNavis that made it to her prior; they had no effect on her decision to start disobeying Zenith for the welfare of hard-working employees over the ‘lazy and ineffectual management.’ The company did that to themselves. She's 'fixing' their problems, as far as she's concerned. She at least agrees to free the NetNavis she trapped, provided they leave her alone and stop wasting her time.

MegaMan can’t find it in himself to delete her, not that he could in the state he found himself in, given he notices his energy being sapped at an astronomical rate, which prompts an explanation of the Overclocked domain, which also covers why he couldn’t communicate with Lan. Before he can leave to an area where he can safely Jack Out, ProtoMan arrives, with enough energy to fight, having not had to fight through all the defenses that had been defeated prior, and MegaMan has to prevent ProtoMan from deleting Tokei, allowing her to speak her piece.

With that resolved, MegaMan returns and simply reports his findings. It raises the question of the 'rights' of NetNavis. He returns from time to time - at great risk to himself, given the Overclocked server - to check on her out of sympathy, but she is always too busy to hold much of a conversation, sending him away. He insists she needs to take a break once in a while... even computers need to rest.

Finally there’s a breaking point, and MegaMan - instead of returning to a safe zone to resume contact with Lan and Jack Out - stays put, in an almost child-like tantrum. His ultimatum; she turn off the Overclock on the server and return to normal time and see how it feels to run at a normal, non-stressed speed... or she keeps it on at the cost of his own safety/life.

Unable to bring herself to hurt MegaMan, Tokei concedes with great effort and turns everything off... and while it does prove that it’s a huge weight lifted, it has the downside of suddenly bringing her activity back into observable time, putting both of them under immediate scrutiny. With Lan also able to weigh in, they argue until suddenly another party joins; Zandra Hertz, Zenith’s CEO.

To show the ‘children’ the error in their own thinking, Zandra uses Tokei’s unprotected state to violently tear the NetNavi’s consciousness out of the supercomputer housing (appearing, Web-side, as a large claw appearing and physically ripping Tokei out from her desk into the darkness), sticking it in an extremely outdated, dilapidated PET, to show both the NetNavi AND the employees she stood up for how much Zenith can’t afford to let her take time off for extended periods. Zandra’s last words to Tokei are, “Fine. Take a vacation. See what good that does you, and everyone else.”

With Tokei gone, the rest of Zenith and its subsidiaries start to feel the pressure of that work not being done. The chaos caused by this, and the ineptitude of the management who had become so painfully reliant on her for HR functions, means they can’t even hire or rehire workers to replace her quickly enough to prevent things from crashing and burning. When Zandra is contacted to take care of matters, it’s discovered she conveniently took a vacation to let everyone fend for themselves. Typical upper management behavior.

Tensions peak after a few days and Lan or someone else chooses to break in to steal the PET Tokei was consigned to and get her out, only to find that the poor condition of the PET and its lack of visual interfaces causes it to act like a sensory deprivation chamber (or worse, if damage to the PET such as electrical shorts or overheating components can actually affect the NetNavi inside). It’s so archaic that while MegaMan can enter the device via Jack In, they don’t know how to get Tokei out of it without first taking it to SciLab for analysis, and in the mean time, they can’t actually charge the device without damaging it further.

To make matters worse, the disappearance of Tokei and the PET she was on becomes an issue of company property theft. In the kids’ hands, nobody knew where the device had gone, but the moment they take the PET to SciLab to either be repaired or to have Tokei transferred into a new device, the lab gets implicated for it and come under legal scrutiny (it turns out Zandra had predicted it would happen and set it up intentionally, banking on the ‘reckless heroism of youth’ to forego critical thinking). She was hoping to use that criminal lawsuit against SciLab for stealing critically proprietary ‘software’ to pad her other earnings.

Fortunately for everyone, this starts to get the public riled up the more they learn about what was happening. A lot of people - even so-called ‘villain’ sorts - cite their own close connections to their NetNavis, as well as the existence of independent NetNavis, as proof that they are more than just feelingless tools for humans to use.

Eventually, public outcry causes Zandra’s plan to backfire, when hundreds of NetNavis from outside Zenith break into its mainframe to help the panicking employees rectify its problems temporarily, and Zandra is forced to step down for endangering the livelihoods of so many people... but not before trying to spitefully take down as much as she possibly can by firing up Tokei’s supercomputer and expanding the Overclock zone to encompass a large portion of the Cyberworld in hopes of melting down as much of the Web as she can in the process, by running malicious code into every connected device.

It’s revealed she never believed humans should have become so reliant on such fickle cyberspace beings in the first place; she lost her injured brother to a hospital mishap caused by the machines failing at the worst possible moment. Her whole plan from the start was to make as much money as she could exploiting the system before ultimately taking it out.

Since the Zenith server cannot be approached via the web without the Navis involved getting hit directly with the wave of Overdrive code, the situation has to be diffused by manually reinstalling Tokei into the supercomputer in person, which possesses its own difficulty as the Overclocked machine is physically overheating and threatening to explode and take the whole company building with it. Suffice to say, though, they succeed (because Lan has protag power).

Zandra is arrested and control of the company is handed over to temporary management, but eventually is given to Tokei herself. She was already doing so much work she practically ran the company upon initial installation, anyway. Since she has no need of money, she simply lets what she would have been making as CEO fall back into the company to promote a better workplace, and to hire employees to keep things running smoothly over the long-term; she’d crunch the numbers initially to get things back on track, and then slowly let the workload redistribute so she could take on a more humane level of management... and finally get a proper damn vacation without worrying about everything going to crap.

She also offers to do the kids’ families’ taxes for free on her off-time. As thanks. Compared to what she’d been doing prior, a handful of tax forms is just a few grains of sand in an hourglass to her.

#art #fanart #fancharacter #mega man #mega man battle network #mmbn #netnavi oc #dai's mega man dump #the reference intended with zandra is mostly a nod to tokay's arc over in classic #it's a pretty heavy-handed nod but i think it's funny #my frame of reference for the most part is mmbn 1-3 and a little of 4 #since dani has been streaming it and suffering through the truly delightful tedium masquerading as game mechanics #this is a real game with real mechanics and real dialogue written by real people it's honestly quite incredible

22 notes · View notes

blurban-form · 6 months

Text

This is a summary of the article that appeared in Bloomberg BusinessWeek, April 3, 2024. I summarized it a fair bit to focus on what was interesting to me in the article. That said, this is still a long read.

Watch out, a couple of swear words in here.

Bluey may be acquired by Disney which would help Disney: 20% of all TV views on the streaming service Disney+ are “Bluey”. In the fourth quarter of 2023 (excluding movies). Americans watched 731 million hours of “Bluey”.

Brumm accepts an award for best children’s program from the Australian Academy of Cinema and Television Arts in 2019.Photographer: Brendon Thorne/AFI/Getty Images

Joe Brumm is 46, likes sports and surfing, and is brash and unpolished; he seems a little like James Dean in that he’s talented but uncomfortable with fame and having to follow Hollywood conventions and rules… It was noted that Joe Brumm had public relations minders/handlers with him from Disney and the BBC to watch what he said when he was interviewed.

Brumm’s influences include Simpsons, South Park, Peanuts, and Calvin and Hobbes. “Peanuts just meant so much to me growing up” said Brumm. He studied animation in the 2000s at the University of Brisbane and worked in London for the BBC before returning to Australia in 2010 to start Ludo animation.

He came up with Bluey himself, and it was a hard sell initially that the show would be targeting adults and children. He used a lot of his own experiences with his kids to come up with story ideas.

For a while there was the idea of making the show something like an R-rated version of “Peppa Pig”, but that idea was dropped because there was already a similar adult Australian sitcom about raising kids being piloted.

The Australian Broadcasting Company liked the concept of “Bluey” and provided Brumm with A$20,000 ($13,000 US) to create a pilot, which became “The Weekend” episode of Season 1, which was screened at the Asian Animation Summit in November 2016.

Bluey is created at Ludo’s headquarters in Brisbane rather than contracting out the animation overseas, which allows Brumm to continue to tweak episodes up until the last minute. If there’s something he doesn’t like them. He also uses local vocal talent.

The ABC and BBC put up A$6 million to complete the first season of “Bluey”. The BBC made it possible to do this, providing the lion’s share of funding in exchange for distribution and merchandising rights. Australia didn’t have the resources to make the show happen otherwise.

Brumm was very angry when an early critique of Bluey in 2018 said the show made fun of stay-at-home dads; Blumm said he thought to himself “go fuck yourself”.

Within seven months, Bluey was the most watched series ever on the ABC streaming service with 75 million plays of episodes, which led to the BBC commissioning a second season of the show.

Ludo was able to retain control the show, and Brumm was entitled to a share of the revenue.

By 2019, networks in the US were interested in Bluey: Nickelodeon wanted “Bluey”, but they were worried about the name, because it was too close to “Blue’s Clues”. Other networks wanted to change the accents of the characters, and this was a dealbreaker for Ludo and Brumm.

This created an opening for Jane Gould, who was at the time the executive vice president of research and scheduling at Disney’s general entertainment division, who had a comfort level with Bluey because she hailed from Brisbane, and she understood the desire of Brumm and Ludo to keep the show Australian. She didn’t think this was a problem, and she borrowed two episodes to test screen in the US; the kids and parents didn’t have a problem with the Australian aspects of the show. Disney acquired the rights from BBC Studios to air Bluey everywhere except Australia, New Zealand and China.

“Bluey” didn’t get the same marketing push as shows like “The Mandalorian” when Disney+ began broadcasting "Bluey" in June 2020, but soon begin to dominate viewership numbers, in part due to the COVID-19 pandemic. (There was a lot of families spending time watching television and they watched a lot of Bluey.)

The ABC didn’t have a problem with the off-colour humour in “Bluey”, like the use of the word “poo”, and seeing a pony poop in “Markets” and this had to be edited out. Brumm said he hated making these edits... Disney defended these edits saying they were trying to be respectful of different cultural sensitivities, and it’s noted that Disney has since released the uncensored versions of the episodes.

Brumm likes to control his creation. He was upset with some of the early prototypes of Bluey toys because Bandit didn’t look right, he looked like a fridge. He was also concerned that at the beginning that there was too much of a focus on Bluey herself and there weren’t enough toys of all the characters. This concern turned out to be accurate; people wanted toys of all of the characters in the show.

Brumm originally was not sure he wanted to do a second season of “Bluey”, fearing it might not be as good as the first. Brumm doesn’t want to repeat himself in terms of episodes. He wants to make sure that each season is better than the previous one. He was also worried that Bluey would have to stop when Brisbane shut down during the COVID-19 pandemic, but the show continued, with staff working from home.

The “Rain” episode was dialogue-free because Brumm wanted to take a break from writing dialogue at the time.

In Australia, the public and the media have publicly questioned why the ABC didn’t try harder to retain control of the profits from "Bluey" merchandise sales. There was an article in the “Australian Financial Review” that lamented that the ABC had let a gold mine slip through its fingers. It was thought that this decision was shortsighted, but the ABC responded saying they made the best deal at the time that they could. Disney has also been said to have made an error in passing on theme park rights and allowing BBC Studios to retain those rights; people go to Disney parks and ask why they can’t see Bluey there.

Disney isn’t releasing details on whether it’s explored buying “Bluey”, but Ludo says Bluey isn’t for sale, but this could change.

It is noted that there hasn’t been a clear announcement of a fourth season. Brumm has stated previously there will be a hiatus and he’s concerned about the children’s voices changing. His preference not to have to replace the voice actors, and he knows he can’t continue to draw upon his own kids experiences because they’ve grown up.

During the interview, Brumm’s handlers interjected and couldn’t said he couldn’t discuss the final episode.

Speaking anonymously, someone familiar with Disney’s “Bluey” dealings said that Brumm is trying to decide whether he’s comfortable letting other people write for the show, which would make it easier to continue to create episodes, and possibly smooth the way for a Disney acquisition in the future, as Disney would be reluctant to spend billions on a show with only three seasons of episodes.

Brumm said over email that he’s already collaborated on writing some additional episodes and ultimately it isn’t his decision who writes Bluey as he doesn’t own the show.

He thinks the final episode is magical and it sums up everything Bluey has tried to do in the last few years.

#Bluey long reads #Imagine an R-rated Bluey. Wow!#Interesting stuff #Bluey

11 notes · View notes

collapsedsquid · 6 months

Text

The Bureau of Labor Statistics shared more information about inflation with Wall Street “super users” than previously disclosed, emails from the agency show. … Emails obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request show that the agency — or at least the economist who sent the original email, a longtime but relatively low-ranking employee — was in regular communication with data users in the finance industry, apparently including analysts at major hedge funds. And they suggest that there was a list of super users, contrary to the agency’s denials. … Many of the recipients appear to have been in-house economists at large investment banks such as Barclays, Nomura and BNP Paribas. Others work for private research firms, which sell their analysis to investors. And some recipients appear to have been analysts at large hedge funds such as Millennium Capital Partners, Brevan Howard and Citadel, which trade directly on their research.

There is no evidence in the emails that the employee provided early access to coming statistical releases or directly shared other data that wasn’t available to the public. In several instances, the employee told users that he couldn’t provide information they had requested because it would require disclosing nonpublic data. But the emails show that the employee did engage in extended, one-on-one email exchanges with data users about how the inflation figures are put together. Such details, though highly technical, can be of significant interest to forecasters, who compete to predict inflation figures to hundredths of a percentage point. Those estimates, in turn, are used by investors making bets on the huge batches of securities that are tied to inflation or interest rates.

What the BLS clearly needs is a Tumblr, hedge funds can submit questions will be public instead of only shared with a superusers email list.

17 notes · View notes

beardedmrbean · 9 months

Text

California is facing a record $68 billion budget deficit.

This is largely attributed to a “severe revenue decline,” according to the state's Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO).

While it’s not the largest deficit the state has ever faced as a percentage of overall spending, it’s the largest in terms of real dollars — and could have a big impact on California taxpayers in the coming years.

Here’s what has eaten into the Golden State’s coffers.

Unprecedented drop in revenue

California is dealing with a revenue shortfall partly due to a delay in 2022-2023 tax collection. The IRS postponed 2022 tax payment deadlines for individuals and businesses in 55 of the 58 California counties to provide relief after a series of natural weather disasters, including severe winter storms, flooding, landslides and mudslides.

Tax payments were originally postponed until Oct. 16, 2023, but hours before the deadline they were further postponed until Nov. 16, 2023. In line with the federal action, California also extended its due date for state tax returns to the same date.

These delays meant California had to adopt its 2023-24 budget before collections began, “without a clear picture of the impact of recent economic weakness on state revenues,” according to the LAO.

Total income tax collections were down 25% in 2022-23, according to the LAO — a decline compared to those seen during the Great Recession and dot-com bust.

“Federal delays in tax collection forced California to pass a budget based on projections instead of actual tax receipts," Erin Mellon, communications director for California Gov. Gavin Newsom, told Fox News. "Now that we have a clearer picture of the state’s finances, we must now solve what would have been last year’s problem in this year’s budget.”

The exodus

California has also lost residents and businesses — and therefore, tax revenue — in recent years.

The Golden State’s population declined for the first time in 2021, as it lost around 281,000 residents, according to the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC). In 2022, the population dropped again by around 211,000 residents — with many moving to other states like Texas, Oregon, Nevada, and Arizona.

Read more: 'It's not taxed at all': Warren Buffett shares the 'best investment' you can make when battling inflation

“Housing costs loom large in this dynamic,” according to the PPIC, which found through a survey that 34% of Californians are considering moving out of the state due to housing costs.

Other factors such as the post-pandemic remote work trend — which has resulted in empty office towers in California’s downtown cores — have also played a role in migration out of the state.

Poor economic conditions

In an effort to tame inflation in the U.S., the Federal Reserve has hiked interest rates 11 times — from 0.25% to 5.5% — since March 2022. These actions have made borrowing more expensive and have reduced the amount of money available for investment.

This has cooled California’s economy in a number of ways. Home sales in the state are down by about 50%, according to the LAO, which it largely attributes to the surge in mortgage rates. The monthly mortgage to buy a typical California home has gone from $3,500 to $5,400 over the course of the Fed’s rate hikes the LAO says.

The Fed’s rate hikes have “hit segments of the economy that have an outsized importance to California,” according to the LAO, including startups and technology companies. Investment in the state’s tech economy has “dropped significantly” due to the financial conditions — evidenced by the number of California companies that went public in 2022 and 2023 being down by over 80% from 2021, the LAO says.

One result of this is that California businesses have had less funding to be able to expand their operations or hire new workers. The LAO pointed out that the number of unemployed workers in the Golden State has risen by nearly 200,000 people since the summer of 2022, lifting the percentage from 3.8% to 4.8%.

Fixing the budget crunch

The LAO suggests that California has various options to address its $68 billion budget deficit — including declaring a budget emergency and then withdrawing around $24 billion in cash reserves.

California also has the option to lower school spending to the constitutional minimum — a move that could save around $16.7 billion over three years. It could also cut back on at least $8 billion of temporary or one-time spending in 2024-25.

However, these are just short-term solutions and may not address the state’s longer term budget issues. In the past, the state has cut back on business tax credits and deductions and increased broad-based taxes to generate more revenue.

Mellon did not reveal any specifics behind the state’s recovery plan in her comments to Fox News. She simply said: “In January, the Governor will introduce a balanced budget proposal that addresses our challenges, protects vital services and public safety and brings increased focus on how the state’s investments are being implemented, while ensuring accountability and judicious use of taxpayer money.”

#nunyas news

13 notes · View notes