Governors enjoy cash deluge right before they face the voters
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/26/governors-enjoy-cash-deluge-reelection-00002107
Ten Global Trends Every Smart Person Should Know | Marian Tupy – Jordan B Peterson Podcast S4 E18
China bought none of the $200 billion it promised from the U.S. under ‘Phase 1’ trade deal, study reveals
“Even on the day two years ago that the trade deal was inked, there was skepticism that China would live up to its pledge to spend $200 billion more on U.S. goods and services.
But a new study finds China didn’t even spend an additional dime on U.S. products.”
…
“China agreed to buy at least $227.9 billion of U.S. exports in 2020 and $274.5 billion in 2021, for a total of $502.4 billion over the pact’s two years, he noted. In reality: U.S. exports of covered goods and services to China over the two years totaled $288.8 billion.”
How to End the Ukraine Crisis in 4 Steps
“Europe is on the brink of war. The United States and its allies are convinced that Russia is planning an invasion of Ukraine, and they are threatening “devastating” sanctions should it take that step. Moscow vehemently denies any such plans, while maintaining that Kyiv is preparing for an assault on the Donbas separatists in Eastern Ukraine. Russian military maneuvers in Crimea, Western Russia and Belarus unnerve the West, while NATO plans a buildup of forces along its long frontier with Russia stretching from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea. Meanwhile, a fitful round of diplomacy preserves hope that the crisis can be defused without military conflict — although the leaked “confidential” U.S. response to Russian demands to halt NATO expansion underscores how far apart the two sides remain.
Is there a diplomatic resolution that will bring enduring peace and stability to the troubled region of Eastern Europe? There is, but getting there requires understanding the essence of the current crisis. It is not simply about Ukraine. It is about the broader European settlement at the end of the Cold War 30 years ago, which Moscow contends was imposed on it at a time of extreme weakness and fails to take into account its national interests. The subsequent eastward expansion of Euro-Atlantic institutions — notably NATO, a political-military organization designed to contain Russia, and the European Union, an economic community that Russia can never join — in Moscow’s views jeopardizes Russia’s security and prosperity. A revived Russia is determined to halt, if not reverse, that process, using all necessary means.”
…
“the path forward is treacherous, but it exists. It will take flexibility and creativity on both sides to navigate it successfully. The risk of a war that would prove catastrophic for Europe, and first of all Ukraine, and threaten escalation to a nuclear cataclysm should concentrate minds.”
…
“We see four elements to a solution. First, restrictions on military operations along the NATO/Russia border. Second, a moratorium on NATO expansion eastward. Third, resolution of ongoing and frozen conflicts in the former Soviet space and the Balkans. And fourth, modernization of the 1975 Helsinki Accords, which created a pan-European forum and articulated agreed principles of interstate relations to undergird East-West detente.”
U.S. inflation might have hit a new 40-year high in January
“With American consumers spending freely and many supply chains still snarled, year-over-year inflation may have notched yet another four-decade high in January.
The factors that have accelerated prices since last spring remain largely in place: Wages are rising at the fastest pace in at least 20 years. Ports and warehouses are overwhelmed, with hundreds of workers at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, the nation’s busiest, out sick last month. Many products and parts remain in short supply as a result.
And reports indicate that the expiration of stimulus checks and other government aid has yet to slow Americans’ appetite for shopping.”
In Ukraine, even peace accords can be a Russian weapon
“Standing with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy in Kyiv on Tuesday, French President Emmanuel Macron proclaimed the Minsk accords to be “the only path allowing us to build peace, the only path allowing us to build a viable political solution.” German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and U.S. President Joe Biden have issued similar statements.
Macron also insisted that he had received a personal commitment from Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow the previous day to respect the Minsk agreement. “I believe that now is the time for all participants in these negotiations to engage in a dialogue in good faith. The path is possible,” he declared.
In fact, there is no path — just a dead end, according to senior officials and diplomats who have participated directly in years of tortured negotiations over the agreement and who know a lot more about its terms and its flaws than Macron does.
Russia insists that the Minsk deal once implemented will grant the now-occupied areas of Donetsk and Luhansk political autonomy that would give the Russian-backed authorities there a veto over major decisions in Kyiv, such as whether to join NATO or the EU. Kyiv says the deal provides for a degree of local self-governance but no such sweeping powers over the whole country’s future.
The Kremlin maintains that Ukraine is obligated to rewrite its constitution and immediately call local elections in the occupied territories. Ukraine says that the deal sets out a series of preconditions for elections that have never been met, including disarmament, removal of Russian fighters, and restoration of Kyiv’s legal authority.
Each side insists that only their interpretation of the deal is the correct one — and their interpretations are flatly contradictory.”
How to stop Trump from stealing the election next time
https://www.vox.com/22870396/january-6-trump-2024-insurrection-election-big-lie
The latest data on US climate pollution is very bad
“The world is still trapped in the same cycle where rising growth means rising use of fossil fuels. Rhodium’s new data shows how easy it is for the economy to become more polluting even if there’s still growth in renewables. What the US needs to do to address climate change is break this pattern: “The best way to solve our climate problems is continue our economic growth, but to have emissions decline,” Larsen said.
The promise of the $555 billion in climate spending in the pending Build Back Better legislation is that the US can still build an offramp. Its investments in renewables and utilities would accelerate a clean power sector and the closure of coal-fired plants, and expand access to electric vehicles. It would also encourage electric vehicles for last-mile deliveries that are needlessly polluting. The bill’s climate provisions are historic, in that they invest in “off-the-shelf, ready-to-go technologies that are commercially available and easy to build up in America today,” said Jesse Jenkins, an environmental engineering professor at Princeton University who is advising lawmakers on the bill.
In December, the House passed the Build Back Better bill, which would inject funding into deploying these readily available solutions and incentivizing research into the harder-to-tackle emissions. One important part of the bill incentivizes renewable electricity and transmission that will help finally close the remaining 183 aging coal-fired power plants in the country.
For rising freight emissions, the bill helps electrify more vans and vehicles that deliver packages to your door, and run equipment used at airports and ports on renewables. Some of its other provisions include $3 billion in direct loans for manufacturing zero-emissions trucks and aircraft, and another $2.5 billion for using offshore wind to power equipment at ports. For heavy-duty trucks, there’s $5 billion to replace polluting trucks with cleaner vehicles. The infrastructure bill that Biden signed into law last year also helps make a dent in transportation emissions by paying for more electric vehicle charging stations and cutting pollution at ports.
Without Build Back Better and other economic and political interventions, domestic emissions could actually be on the rise again above 2019 levels. (This comes from separate Rhodium modeling that’s based on the pessimistic assumption that there will be no federal legislation, no new EPA regulation, and no further state action.) In this world, pollution levels in 2030 would remain just 15 to 25 percent below the US peak in 2005.
The US doesn’t have to be headed down this path. Larsen explained that it is important for this transition “to happen very quickly if we’re going to be able to begin to see a reduction in emissions by the end of this decade.””
Texas went big on oil. Earthquakes followed.
“Seismologists say that one of the state’s biggest industries is upsetting a delicate balance deep underground. They blame the oil and gas business — and particularly a technique called wastewater injection — for waking up ancient fault lines, turning a historically stable region into a shaky one, and opening the door to larger earthquakes that Texas might not be ready for.
The state is finally trying to change that. In December, the Texas Railroad Commission — the state agency that regulates oil and gas operations and no longer has anything to do with railroads — suspended wastewater injection at 33 sites across a region where more than half a million people live. This is a notable turnaround for the Railroad Commission, which until recently did not acknowledge a link between oil and gas operations and earthquakes, and might be a sign of just how serious the earthquakes have gotten.”
The frustrating Covid-19 test reimbursement process is a microcosm of US health care
“The United States health system, more than any other in the developed world, forces patients to manage their health care on their own. They pay a lot of their own money for medical care. They have to make sure their specific doctor is covered by their specific insurer. And even if their doctor believes they need a certain treatment, patients must follow rules set by their health insurer, or risk delays in treatment or ultimately having their insurance claims denied.
Patients run into these obstacles all the time — with serious consequences for their well-being. A recurring finding in health care research is that when patients run into any friction, whether high cost-sharing, limited access to providers, or something else, they tend to receive less timely and appropriate care. Over time, that will make people more likely to develop serious health conditions and, ultimately, die younger than they would with proper care.
It starts with the sheer cost of health care to US patients. Out-of-pocket spending per person is higher in the US than in any other wealthy country save Switzerland, and roughly twice as much as in countries like the UK, the Netherlands, and Japan. Recent research has found that even small cost obligations, as little as $10 for a prescription, can discourage patients from taking their medicine as prescribed. A third of Americans have reported in public opinion surveys that they skip medications or other necessary medical care because of the cost.
But the US health system puts up other, subtler hurdles. Insurers don’t cover care at every doctor’s practice or hospital; they instead contract with certain providers to create provider networks, within which their patients must seek care for their treatment to be covered. These networks put the onus on patients to figure out where they can go for care, at the risk of incurring huge medical bills if they get it wrong. That problem came to the forefront in the recent debate over surprise billing: Many people were going to the hospital for an emergency, only to find out after the fact that either the hospital or a doctor who treated them was not covered by their insurer.
That has been a common experience for American patients: About one in four heart attacks lead to the patient being charged for out-of-network care in the emergency department or if they are admitted.
Networks also make shopping for health insurance more difficult. Patients have to try to figure out in advance whether their existing primary care doctor or specialists, or the local hospital, will be covered by their new plan.”
…
“Patients can run into the same kind of problem with drug formularies, a list of approved drugs that health plans use to prioritize coverage for certain medications. If a drug is not on a plan’s formulary, customers must pay more of their money than they would for approved drugs. Sorting out which drugs are covered or preferred under a health plan’s formulary can be a headache, and research has shown that such restrictions lead to patients using fewer medications.”