“China banned the export of gallium, germanium, antimony, and industrial diamonds to the U.S., in response to U.S. trade and investment restrictions on Chinese technology companies. Though tit-for-tat tariffs occasionally lead to bilateral trade agreements, protectionism is more frequently a response in kind. China’s rare materials ban is the latest such response in the ongoing U.S.–China semiconductor trade war.”
…
“The technological trade war reduces the productive and military capacity of both countries, not just China. Technonationalism harms American and Chinese consumers, hinders economic growth, reduces cross-cultural cooperation, and makes aggression more attractive.”
“As with so many overly punitive or privacy-invading schemes surrounding sex work, policies like the one taking effect in North Carolina have been sold under the guise of stopping human trafficking—despite targeting anyone involved in paid sexual exchange, even when it’s between consenting adults.
Cops, politicians, and antiprostitution activists argue that by targeting anyone who would pay for sex, they’re going to “end demand” for all prostitution—thereby also thwarting forced, coerced, and underage prostitution, aka human trafficking or sex trafficking.
This is absurd, of course. We can’t eradicate the human sex drive, nor can we ensure that everyone can fulfill it without money changing hands. The state is not going to “end demand” for sex, no matter how hard it tries.
Besides, we know from other types of prohibition that increasingly punitive laws don’t have the major deterrent effect that proponents suggest. A certain sort of person will be deterred by something being criminalized at all, but many people willing to risk arrest and punishment aren’t likely to be deterred by the fact that they could potentially receive a longer sentence.
What is likely to happen with increased criminalization of prostitution customers is that customers will actually gain more power and more of an upper hand in sex work negotiations. After all, they’re the ones incurring more risk (at least in North Carolina and Texas; Oklahoma seems to have ramped up penalties on everyone involved). Undoubtedly, this will make customers less likely to submit to screening methods and perhaps less likely to act in other ways that are beneficial to sex workers.
In the end, sex workers will be the real victims of this policy change.
The vast majority of customers will never be caught and never face increased punishment. But the threat exists for everyone, and the ramifications of this increased threat will reverberate throughout the sex work scene in North Carolina, with potential consequences for anyone involved in selling sex.”
…
“Ramping up penalties for prostitution customers illustrates one of the many ways in which authorities are repeating the mistakes of the war on drugs in their war on sex trafficking.
As the drug war ramped up, we saw ever-escalating penalties: more prison time, more severe charges, more conditions on those convicted, etc.
As the drug war ramped up, we saw a shift from law enforcement focus on major drug suppliers to anyone selling drugs to anyone buying drugs.
The drug war shift to targeting drug buyers was even sold as an “end demand” strategy, with advocates arguing that we could stamp out drug trafficking (the supply side) by going harder after drug users (the demand side).”
…
“Yes, we massively ramped up drug arrests, prosecutions, and convictions. We filled our jails and prisons beyond capacity with people found guilty of drug crimes. We devastated many lower-income communities by putting so many people from them behind bars while simultaneously creating incentives for gang activity to thrive. We threw boatloads of money at enforcement, and enabled all sorts of crazy police-state schemes in service of this. We militarized police and poked a million holes in civil liberties.
We did not, however, end demand for drugs. We did not stamp out drug addiction and drug-related gang activity. We most emphatically did not win the drug war.
And we will not end demand for sex, nor stamp out sexual exploitation and sex-related crime, by repeating all of the drug war’s mistakes. But states like North Carolina seem intent on trying. ”
“The current average credit card interest rate is 21 percent, but it didn’t get there overnight. In 2008, the average rate was 14 percent, at a time when the savings rate was much lower and consumers were overextended. In 2009, a Democratic supermajority in Congress passed the CARD Act, bringing a bevy of new regulations for credit card companies, such as requiring advance notice of any rate increases and limitations on fees for late payments.
Interest rates began rising immediately following the passage of the CARD Act and continued to rise as the risk-free rate—the Federal Reserve’s overnight lending rate, currently about 4.75 percent—fell to 0 percent throughout most of the 2010s. Objectively, credit card interest rates are high today, but they are arguably high as a direct result of legislation passed at the end of the 2000s. Capping credit card interest rates is simply an intervention to correct the results of previous interventions.”
…
“There is a reason that credit cards carry a higher average interest rate than mortgages (7 percent) or car loans (8 percent). Mortgages and car loans are secured lending—the bank has collateral in the event of a default which increases recovery rates. Credit card borrowing is unsecured lending—lenders rely on nothing more than trust in the borrower. When losses occur, they are total and catastrophic. Credit card lending is inherently risky.
The vast majority of borrowers are unprofitable at a 10 percent interest rate. If credit card interest rates were capped at 10 percent, it wouldn’t just disrupt individual finances—it could destabilize the entire credit system. Major credit card lenders, such as Capital One Financial, would likely terminate the accounts of millions of their less creditworthy customers, which could mean anyone with a credit score of 780 or lower. To the extent possible, they might introduce new fees to make up for the loss of interest revenue, but the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is already taking a hard look at late fees, which can be large relative to small credit card balances.
Customers who lose access to credit would have to resort to cash or debit cards—and find that it is hard to function in modern society without a credit card. Even renting a car or getting a hotel room are activities that require a credit card.”
…
“Interest rates are prices—the price of money—and all prices are signals. Capping credit card rates might sound like a win for consumers, but in practice, it’s a lesson in unintended consequences. Policymakers must tread carefully, weighing the broader economic impacts before introducing well-intentioned but potentially devastating reforms.”
“A Republican judge has spent more than two months trying to overturn his narrow defeat for a North Carolina Supreme Court seat by arguing that around 60,000 ballots should be tossed out. But many residents have only recently learned that their votes are in danger of not being counted and say they have done nothing wrong.”
Demographic collapse is a huge threat to economic growth.
As countries urbanize, having kids becomes more of a burden, and as women enter the workforce, having children is detrimental to their careers and they are out of a cultural context where having children is more expected. People don’t have children at all, or women wait till their 30s where they have less time to have children and having children is biologically more difficult.
““No. 1, he had the legal authority to do it,” Graham pointed out. “But I fear that you will get more violence. Pardoning the people who went into the Capitol and beat up a police officer, violently, I think, was a mistake because it seems to suggest that’s an OK thing to do.” Graham made similar comments to CNN’s Dana Bash, saying the pardons “sent the wrong signal.”
Members of Trump’s loyal base flipped out over Graham’s mild chiding of the returned POTUS. They slammed the senator as a “snake” and a “RINO,” or Republican In Name Only.”
“Trump on Friday evening reportedly dismissed at least 15 inspectors general from their roles. The firings appear to violate federal legislation that mandates that congressional lawmakers be given 30-day notice of an intent to dismiss inspectors general.”
…
“Schiff warned Americans that Trump’s decision to move forward with these dismissals carries risks given the post involves providing independent audits, inspections and investigations of government agencies.”
“the United States is far from alone in offering birthright citizenship. As of 2022, 60 countries had a provision in their legal codes or constitutions that provide at least some pathway to citizenship by jus soli, according to data from the Global Citizenship Observatory.* And more than half of those nations have a mostly unrestricted version akin to the United States’ longstanding formulation, whereby nearly anyone born in that country is guaranteed access to citizenship. (Others may provide for birthright citizenship subject to additional requirements, such as parental descent, period of residence and/or membership of a certain racial or ethnic group.)
Overall, unfettered birthright citizenship is mainly found among countries in the Americas, many of which — including the U.S. — have lengthy histories of immigration from other parts of the globe.”