Trump Takes Credit for Food Aid in Letter to Needy Families. Sound Familiar?

spnphotosten047062

The news, as it tends to be, has been dominated by President Donald Trump over the last several days, perhaps even more so with his recent COVID-19 diagnosis, which means one recent Trump tidbit largely flew under the radar: his requirement that billions of dollars in food aid packages for the needy arrive in tandem with a letter signed by him.

“As President, safeguarding the health and well-being of our citizens is one of my highest priorities,” the letter reads, referencing the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) $4 billion Farmers to Families Food Box Program. The initiative has purchased food typically bought by restaurants and rerouted it toward poor families, with over 100 million boxes sent since May. “As part of our response to the coronavirus, I prioritized sending nutritious food from our farmers to families in need throughout America.”

Reactions have not been uniformly positive, with some characterizing the letter as an overtly politicized election stunt. “In my 30 years of doing this work, I’ve never seen something this egregious,” Lisa Hamler-Fugitt, executive director of the Ohio Association of Food Banks, told Politico. “These are federally purchased boxes.”

Some food banks have begun removing the letters. Meanwhile, several people appear to be receiving the aid and corresponding letter even though they aren’t underserved. “Why would someone receiving this really need to know this?” said Matthew Killen of Miami Beach, who is not in need but received a package of food on his doorstep, according to The Miami Herald. He lives in a majority Hispanic neighborhood, which he feels the administration “targeted” so Trump could “win [the] area.”

Readers might remember a string of similar criticisms leveled at former President Barack Obama during the 2012 election after the “Obamaphone” video went viral. “Everybody in Cleveland—low, minority—got Obamaphones,” says a woman who had shown up to protest at a Mitt Romney rally. “Keep Obama in president [sic]. He gave us a phone. He’s gonna do more.”

In reality, that controversy was a farce. Under the spotlight was the Lifeline program, which provides subsidies for communications to eligible low-income recipients. The catch: It was implemented in 1985 during the Reagan administration, and the Obama administration had sought to reform what was seen as a program plagued by massive fraud. The changes reportedly saved $213 million.

That didn’t get in the way of a semi-popular claim, however, that Obama was passing out phones for votes. “She may not know who George Washington is or Abraham Lincoln,” opined radio host Rush Limbaugh, “but she knows how to get an Obamaphone.” Former Rep. Adam Putnam (R–Fla.) had more pointed words: “Early vote now so that you can wave signs on election day next Tuesday,” he said. “We’ve got to drag people to the polls. That’s what they’re doing. You don’t have to offer them cell phones like they’re doing.”

The Trump administration denies that his food aid work was at all politically-motivated. “Politics has played zero role in the Farmers to Families food box program,” the Department of Agriculture said in a statement. “It is purely about helping farmers and distributors get food to Americans in need during this unprecedented time.”

Trump similarly attached a letter to the stimulus checks doled out as part of the government’s coronavirus relief program, though that was a bipartisan measure negotiated through Congress. The two programs have something else in common, though: They are the very types of “socialist” policies that many right-wingers usually condemn, a la “Obamaphones.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/34C0CD8
via IFTTT

Jo Jorgensen Beating the Polling Spread in 4 States; Each Voted for Trump in 2016

JoJorg

Four weeks before Election Day, third-party presidential candidates continue to lag in the polls compared to the spike year of 2016, when 5.7 percent of the electorate went nontraditional for POTUS. In the RealClearPolitics average of the last five national polls, Libertarian Jo Jorgensen sits at just 2 percent, while the Green Party’s Howie Hawkins is at a temporarily high 1.4 percent that will revert closer to 1 once the next poll rolls over. (Also, if Hawkins, in the face of near-fanatical Democratic voter motivation this year, tops 2016 nominee Jill Stein’s 1.1 percent, I will eat a Dodgers hat on live television.)

Still, there remains potential yet for Libertarians and even Greens to be labeled “spoilers” depending on how this high-intensity election plays out. Jorgensen is polling higher than the gap between President Donald Trump and Democratic nominee Joe Biden in four key states, each of which Trump won in 2016: Ohio and North Carolina, where Biden currently leads, and Iowa and Georgia, where the incumbent retains a tiny advantage.

Here are those state races, ranked by the percentage-point distance between the third-party candidate and the margin between the top two.

1) Ohio, +2.3

Polling percentages: Biden 45.5, Trump 44.5, Jorgensen 3.3, Hawkins 0.8, other/not voting/undecided 6.5 (four polls)

Forecast: Rated a toss-up by 12 out of 14 prognosticators, with the other two leaning Trump. “Ohio looked like a red state a year ago,” noted Cleveland.com last week. “Heading into the presidential debate, it’s clearly a toss-up.”

2016 results: Trump 51.7, Hillary Clinton 43.6, Gary Johnson 3.2, Jill Stein 0.8, Richard Duncan 0.4

2) North Carolina, +1.0 

Polling percentages: Biden 45.8, Trump 44.6, Jorgensen 2.0, Hawkins 0.6, Constitution Party nominee Don Blankenship 0.4 (in eight polls), other/not voting/undecided 6.2 (17 polls)

Forecast: 13/14 toss-up, with one leaning Biden. “Most every political veteran in North Carolina, Democrat or Republican, is expecting a close race,” reported The New York Times on September 26. “Each of the last three presidential races in the state has been decided by less than four percentage points….[And] a number of people in the state have already voted: Absentee ballots began going out to the state’s voters three weeks ago.”

2016 results: Trump 49.8, Clinton 46.2, Johnson 2.7, Stein 0.3

3) Iowa, +1.0

Polling percentages: Trump 45.8, Biden 44.8, Jorgensen 2.0, Hawkins 0.7 (in 3 polls), other/not voting/undecided 6.8 (five polls)

Forecast: 9/14 rate it a toss-up, with five leaning Trump. Reports CNN this week: “Trump’s campaign canceled its planned television advertising in Iowa and Ohio this week, focusing its spending on states where Trump is behind even as polls show he is neck-and-neck with Democratic challenger Joe Biden in the two Midwestern states.”

2016 results: Trump 51.2, Clinton 41.7, Johnson 3.8, Evan McMullin 0.8, Stein 0.7, Darrell Castle (Constitution Party) 0.3, Lynn Kahn (New Independent) 0.1, Dan Vacek (Legal Marijuana Now) 0.1

4) Georgia, +0.6

Polling percentages: Trump 46.6, Biden 45.1, Jorgensen 2.1, Hawkins 1.0, other/not voting/undecided 5.6 (11 polls, four with Hawkins)

Forecast: 12/14 toss-up, with two leaning Trump. “In a wild 2020 election shaped by pandemic, protests and polarizing politics,” the Atlanta Journal-Constitution wrote last week, “suburban women could well determine the fate of Georgia’s presidential race, two U.S. Senate elections and down-ballot contests. And both parties have sharpened their pitches to win over the once-reliably Republican bloc.”

2016 results: Trump 50.4, Clinton 45.4, Johnson 3.0, Evan McMullin 0.3

Bonus state: Alaska, +/- ?

That’s a question mark because for some foolish reason POLLSTERS AREN’T INCLUDING THIRD-PARTY CANDIDATES IN ALASKA, NOT EVEN ONCE. This is a particularly unwise tactic in the Last Frontier since voters there are as likely as any in the union to vote against the grain—a combined 12.2 percent for non-Dems/Repubs in 2016. Ralph Nader got 10.1 percent of the vote there in 2000; Ross Perot got 28.4 percent of the vote in 1992.

Forecast: 13/14 prognosticators peg this race as likely or leaning Republican, and fair enough—Alaska has voted for the last 13 consecutive GOP presidential nominees, and by at least 14 percentage points for the past six. “Alaska’s values are the values of the Libertarian Party,” Jorgensen told the Juneau Empire last month. “We believe in the individual, we believe that people have the right to make their own decisions and we shouldn’t be bossed around by the people in Washington. The federal government is too big, too nosy, too, bossy and the worst part is, they usually end up hurting the very people they’re trying to help.”

2016 results: Trump 51.3, Clinton 36.6, Johnson 5.9, Stein 1.8, Castle 1.2, Reform Party nominee Rocky De La Fuente 0.4

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2SNyS9v
via IFTTT

Democrats and the White House Were Nearing an Agreement on Renter, Homeowner Assistance. Then Trump Tweeted.

sfphotosfour737806

President Donald Trump’s abrupt decision to cut off negotiations on a compromise stimulus bill until after the election has likely killed any chance that the White House and congressional Democrats will reach an agreement on federal assistance to renters and homeowners.

“Nancy Pelosi is asking for $2.4 Trillion Dollars to bailout poorly run, high crime, Democrat States, money that is in no way related to COVID-19,” tweeted Trump on Tuesday afternoon. “I have instructed my representatives to stop negotiating until after the election when, immediately after I win, we will pass a major Stimulus Bill that focuses on hardworking Americans and Small Business.”

The announcement comes just as a compromise between the White House and House Democrats on rent relief appeared to be in the cards.

On Thursday, House Democrats passed a $2.2 trillion HEROES Act, which includes $50 billion for emergency rental assistance, and $21 billion in funding for states and territories to spend assisting homeowners.

Of that $50 billion in rental assistance, at least 40 percent would have to go to tenants making 30 percent or less of their area’s median income, and 70 percent of it would have to be spent on those making less than half their area’s median income. Tenants making up to 120 percent of area median income would be eligible for assistance.

These income restrictions are identical to those found in the enlarged $3.5 trillion HEROES Act back in May, which earmarked $175 billion to renter and homeowner assistance. The $71 billion in renter and homeowner assistance proposed by Democrats now is still too rich for many congressional Republicans but is much closer to the $60 billion that Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin said the White House could accept.

Senate Republicans did not include any funds for rent or mortgage relief in their latest, failed “skinny” stimulus. Sen. Pat Toomey (R–Penn.) told Reason last month that he opposed additional federal assistance to renters, saying “I think we have to ask ourselves how much expansion of the welfare state, how many different layers, how many different programs are we going to do. When is it enough?”

“It’s extraordinarily reckless and irresponsible for Trump to blow up negotiations now, when so many renters and small landlords are struggling,” said Diane Yentel, president and CEO of the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC), in a statement to Reason. “The longer the federal government waits to act, the steeper the financial cliff that renters will be pushed off when the eviction moratorium expires this winter.”

Yentel is referencing the eviction moratorium issued in early September by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). It bars evictions for non-payment nationwide until the end of the year.

Both versions of Democrats’ HEROES Act have also included a nationwide eviction moratorium and automatic mortgage forbearance.

The CDC’s moratorium, currently the subject of a lawsuit seeking to overturn it, does not forgive tenants’ obligation to pay rent. It only prevents landlords from moving to evict them while it’s in effect. For that reason, the NLIHC, among other housing advocacy groups, has pushed for federal rental assistance so that tenants won’t be evicted for unpayable back rent come January.

Still, Trump’s decision to blow up negotiations probably hits landlords the hardest, at least in the short-term. Their industry associations have also been staunch advocates of rental assistance, while generally being critical of eviction moratoriums as an overly blunt policy instrument.

“While the National Apartment Association (NAA) is pleased that the House’s revised HEROES Act contains some helpful provisions, including funding for emergency rental assistance, the bill’s extension of the federal eviction moratorium for an additional year would devastate the rental housing industry,” said NAA CEO Bob Pinnegar last Thursday.

“Passing relief measures, like direct rental assistance, should not be a political game; emergency rental assistance is the only policy that will keep renters safely housed and ensure rental housing providers can pay their bills,” said Pinnegar in a statement to Reason in response to Trump’s decision to shut down negotiations Tuesday.

With those negotiations now stalled, landlords are stuck coping with the CDC’s eviction moratorium without the prospects of rental assistance in the near term.

According to the National Multifamily Housing Council’s (NMHC) rent payment tracker, which surveys professionally managed apartment buildings, 92 percent of tenants had paid at least some of their September rent by the week ending on September 27. By the end of August, 94.5 percent of tenants had paid at least partial rent.

Owners of lower-end rental units, which are often not professionally managed and therefore not captured by the NMHC’s survey, report lower payment rates during the pandemic.

Eviction filings are below historic averages in 15 of 17 cities tracked by Princeton University’s Eviction Lab. Places like Boston and Austin—both of which have local eviction moratoriums in addition to the CDC’s policy—have seen evictions drop close to zero. The two exceptions are Columbus, Ohio, and Richmond, Virginia, where evictions are above historic averages by 48 and 300 percent respectively.

With eviction rates below historic averages in most cities and rental payment rates staying pretty steady throughout the pandemic, a massive new federal program to bail out tenants and rental property owners seems excessive.

That’s particularly true when most of the stimulus proposals on offer include expanded unemployment benefits and another round of $1,200 stimulus payments. Renters report using those types of benefits, which were included in the March coronavirus relief bill, to cover their housing costs earlier in the pandemic.

Whether the mercurial Trump will stick to his decision to walk away from stimulus talks remains to be seen. After tweeting that he was done negotiating, the president again took to Twitter to urge the passage of a bailout for the airlines and another round of stimulus checks.

It’s possible renters and homeowners will also benefit from Trump’s backtracking. If they don’t, they’ll have to wait until 2021 for more help from the feds.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2HXNOzo
via IFTTT

Before the Web: The 1980s Dream of a Free and Borderless Virtual World

v2

In the early 1990s, a group of mathematicians, misfits, hackers, and hobbyists calling themselves “the cypherpunks” came together around a shared belief that the internet would either demolish society’s artificial walls or lay the groundwork for an Orwellian state. They saw cryptography as a weapon against central planning and surveillance in this new virtual world.

The philosophical and technical ideas explored on the cypherpunks’ widely read email list, which launched in 1992, influenced the creation of bitcoin, WikiLeaks, Tor, BitTorrent, and the Silk Road. The cypherpunks anticipated the promise and the peril that lay ahead when the internet went mainstream, including new threats to privacy and the possibility of building virtual platforms for communication and trade that would be impervious to government regulators.

The first episode in Reason‘s new documentary series on the cypherpunks looks at a clash of ideas over how the internet could lead to a more free society, which was a precursor to the formation of the cypherpunk movement. It took place between the economist and entrepreneur Phil Salin, and the former Intel physicist Timothy C. May, who became known as the father of “crypto anarchy.” (Salin died of cancer in 1991 at the age of 41, and May passed away in 2018 at the age of 66.)

Salin was part of a community of young computer scientists in Silicon Valley, who the George Mason University economist Don Lavoie dubbed the “High Tech Hayekians” because of their efforts to blend the insights of Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek with computer science. The group included the pioneering technologists Mark S. Miller, Chip Morningstar, and E. Dean Tribble; Salin’s wife and business partner Gayle Pergamit; the software developer and science fiction writer Marc Stiegler; K. Eric Drexler, who is best known for his pioneering work in nanotechnology; and Christine Peterson, who later co-founded the Foresight Institute with Drexler.

Salin believed that personal computers linked up in a global communication network would make it possible to build a borderless, frictionless, global marketplace that would improve human coordination in the economy. May thought this would have negligible impact, positing instead a new world in cyberspace similar to what the science fiction writer Vernor Vinge had described in his novella True Names: an “other plane” completely shielded from government surveillance and control.

When May met Salin in 1987, it was before the release of the World Wide Web, but home computer hobbyists were already getting online in limited ways. Users could dial into servers through their phone lines to post to message boards, check their horoscopes, read the news, or go shopping.

While the e-commerce services from this period, such as CompuServe’s “Electronic Mall,” were basically digital versions of the old mail-order catalog, in a prescient 1991 essay published in Esther Dyson’s influential tech-industry newsletter, Salin foresaw how the internet would change the world by 1995, 2000, and beyond. The static roles of store and shopper, seller and buyer, author and reader—systems defined by their “one-way information flows”—would be replaced by new forms of media, he argued, enabling “two-way information flows.”

“The ability to buy or obtain exactly the information you need, when you want it, in the form you want it, is about to explode at a speed unmatched since the invention of printing,” Salin predicted.

But Salin was more than just a theorist. In the mid-1980s, he founded a dialup e-commerce startup called the American Information Exchange (AMIX). Users could buy or sell advice about the real estate market, writing software, or what companies to invest in.

Though it was similar in ways to services that would launch a decade later, AMIX was more than just an idea before its time. What set it apart was its grounding in political philosophy and its lofty goal of elevating individual decision making over central planning. Salin envisioned AMIX as a tool for improving human coordination that could lead to new levels of local knowledge sharing. It would help reduce transaction costs in the economy and serve as an alternative to central planning.

A “fluid, transaction-oriented market system, with two-way feedback,” Salin wrote in Dyson’s newsletter, would result in “crowding out monolithic, mostly government bureaucracies.”

AMIX’s chief architect was the pioneering software engineer Chip Morningstar, who had come from a stint at George Lucas’ production studio, where he oversaw the creation of the video game Habitat, one of the first virtual online communities.

After joining AMIX, Morningstar co-authored an essay about building Habitat, which echoed the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises’ famous claim that socialism is “impossible” with the assertion that, when building a world in software, “detailed central planning is impossible; don’t even try.”

“The world is just more complicated, people are more complicated, you can’t know what all their goals are,” Morningstar told Reason in a recent video interview. “What you can do is put them into an environment where certain things are possible.”

In December 1987, Morningstar decided to introduce May, who he had befriended through a science fiction fan club, to Salin.

“Chip said there’s this guy out in Santa Cruz that you ought to talk to,” May recalled.

As a scientist at Intel, May had solved an issue affecting the reliability of the company’s memory chips called the alpha particle problem. Rich on stock options, he had retired early, spending his days at the beach reading science fiction novels, thinking about how networked personal computers could turn some of their futuristic scenarios into reality.

“So I met with Phil…and he described how AMIX would work. And I said, ‘people aren’t going to be selling meaningless stuff, like surfboard recommendations.'”

In May’s view, an online information marketplace like AMIX would only have a major societal impact as a tool for undermining state power by shattering social and legal norms. He had a different vision of a virtual marketplace for any and all goods and services, which he dubbed “BlackNet,” or a “technological means of undermining all governments.” He suggested to Salin that he reconceive of AMIX as an anonymous platform for selling company trade secrets, “such as plans for that B-1 Bomber or a process for a technology.”

On AMIX, user activity was out in the open, but BlackNet would be impervious to government tracking and surveillance. Many people’s “first response” would be to say that BlackNet “won’t be allowed to happen,” May noted at the time. “Perhaps” but technology would “probably make it inevitable.”

This debate sparked May’s interest in cryptography and cryptocurrency and would lead him to co-found the cypherpunks. Salin had an objection that May couldn’t answer: There would be no way for sellers to get paid. The only anonymous form of payment was cash, and you couldn’t shove cash through a computer screen. “I admitted to Phil that the big problem was untraceable payments,” May recalled. But it “seemed like a solvable problem.” He remembered reading something on the topic. 

A couple of days after his meeting with Salin, May dug out his copy of the October 1985 issue of Communications of the ACM. The cover story was by the computer scientist David Chaum and titled, “Security Without Identification: Transaction Systems to Make Big Brother Obsolete,” which described a method for sending relatively anonymous payments using cryptography, which he would later attempt to commercialize through an early online startup called DigiCash.

That such a thing was possible “was an epiphany.” May recalled. “It was like standing on top of the mountain and seeing what’s out there.”

In 1988, AMIX was acquired by the software giant AutoDesk. A growing scene of young technologists came together around Salin and the High-Tech Hayekians, all working toward a common vision of enhancing human freedom through networked personal computing.

“It was a hothouse of ideas,” recalls Miller.

AutoDesk eventually abandoned AMIX, and Tim Berners-Lee’s World Wide Web became publicly available the same year Salin died. But Salin’s intellectual contributions and conflict with May had laid the groundwork for what would come next for the cypherpunks: the long effort to build a self-sovereign and anonymous form of digital money and the embrace of a branch of mathematics called cryptography, which they viewed as the key to personal liberation on the internet.

Written, shot, edited, narrated, and graphics by Jim Epstein; opening and closing graphics by Lex Villena; additional graphics assistance from Isaac Reese; audio production by Ian Keyser; archival research by Regan Taylor

Music: “Moving on” by Jay Denton, licensed through Artlist; “High Flight” by Michele Nobler, licensed through Artlist; “Machinery” by Kai Engel, Creative Commons — Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International

Photos: Hugh Daniel at the Ottawa Linux Symposium, Paul Wouters/Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0; John Gilmore, Paul Kitagaki Jr./ZUMA Press/Newscom; John Gilmore at Burning Man 2005, Creative Commons — Attribution 2.0 Generic License; Whitfield Diffie, Chuck Painter/Stanford News Service; David D. Friedman, Gage Skidmore, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0; Cody Wilson, Jay Janner/TNS/Newscom; Ross Ulbricht, freeross.net; Julian Assange, Dominic Lipinski/ZUMA Press/Newscom; London Protester, Tal Cohen/Photoshot/Newscom; Louis J. Freeh and Bill Clinton, Ron Sachs—CNP/Newscom; Bill Gates, Staff/Mirrorpix/Newscom; David Chaum, AP PHOTO/DUSAN VRANIC.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/36FKXFH
via IFTTT

Democrats and the White House Were Nearing an Agreement on Renter, Homeowner Assistance. Then Trump Tweeted.

sfphotosfour737806

President Donald Trump’s abrupt decision to cut off negotiations on a compromise stimulus bill until after the election has likely killed any chance that the White House and congressional Democrats will reach an agreement on federal assistance to renters and homeowners.

“Nancy Pelosi is asking for $2.4 Trillion Dollars to bailout poorly run, high crime, Democrat States, money that is in no way related to COVID-19,” tweeted Trump on Tuesday afternoon. “I have instructed my representatives to stop negotiating until after the election when, immediately after I win, we will pass a major Stimulus Bill that focuses on hardworking Americans and Small Business.”

The announcement comes just as a compromise between the White House and House Democrats on rent relief appeared to be in the cards.

On Thursday, House Democrats passed a $2.2 trillion HEROES Act, which includes $50 billion for emergency rental assistance, and $21 billion in funding for states and territories to spend assisting homeowners.

Of that $50 billion in rental assistance, at least 40 percent would have to go to tenants making 30 percent or less of their area’s median income, and 70 percent of it would have to be spent on those making less than half their area’s median income. Tenants making up to 120 percent of area median income would be eligible for assistance.

These income restrictions are identical to those found in the enlarged $3.5 trillion HEROES Act back in May, which earmarked $175 billion to renter and homeowner assistance. The $71 billion in renter and homeowner assistance proposed by Democrats now is still too rich for many congressional Republicans but is much closer to the $60 billion that Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin said the White House could accept.

Senate Republicans did not include any funds for rent or mortgage relief in their latest, failed “skinny” stimulus. Sen. Pat Toomey (R–Penn.) told Reason last month that he opposed additional federal assistance to renters, saying “I think we have to ask ourselves how much expansion of the welfare state, how many different layers, how many different programs are we going to do. When is it enough?”

“It’s extraordinarily reckless and irresponsible for Trump to blow up negotiations now, when so many renters and small landlords are struggling,” said Diane Yentel, president and CEO of the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC), in a statement to Reason. “The longer the federal government waits to act, the steeper the financial cliff that renters will be pushed off when the eviction moratorium expires this winter.”

Yentel is referencing the eviction moratorium issued in early September by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). It bars evictions for non-payment nationwide until the end of the year.

Both versions of Democrats’ HEROES Act have also included a nationwide eviction moratorium and automatic mortgage forbearance.

The CDC’s moratorium, currently the subject of a lawsuit seeking to overturn it, does not forgive tenants’ obligation to pay rent. It only prevents landlords from moving to evict them while it’s in effect. For that reason, the NLIHC, among other housing advocacy groups, has pushed for federal rental assistance so that tenants won’t be evicted for unpayable back rent come January.

Still, Trump’s decision to blow up negotiations probably hits landlords the hardest, at least in the short-term. Their industry associations have also been staunch advocates of rental assistance, while generally being critical of eviction moratoriums as an overly blunt policy instrument.

“While the National Apartment Association (NAA) is pleased that the House’s revised HEROES Act contains some helpful provisions, including funding for emergency rental assistance, the bill’s extension of the federal eviction moratorium for an additional year would devastate the rental housing industry,” said NAA CEO Bob Pinnegar last Thursday.

“Passing relief measures, like direct rental assistance, should not be a political game; emergency rental assistance is the only policy that will keep renters safely housed and ensure rental housing providers can pay their bills,” said Pinnegar in a statement to Reason in response to Trump’s decision to shut down negotiations Tuesday.

With those negotiations now stalled, landlords are stuck coping with the CDC’s eviction moratorium without the prospects of rental assistance in the near term.

According to the National Multifamily Housing Council’s (NMHC) rent payment tracker, which surveys professionally managed apartment buildings, 92 percent of tenants had paid at least some of their September rent by the week ending on September 27. By the end of August, 94.5 percent of tenants had paid at least partial rent.

Owners of lower-end rental units, which are often not professionally managed and therefore not captured by the NMHC’s survey, report lower payment rates during the pandemic.

Eviction filings are below historic averages in 15 of 17 cities tracked by Princeton University’s Eviction Lab. Places like Boston and Austin—both of which have local eviction moratoriums in addition to the CDC’s policy—have seen evictions drop close to zero. The two exceptions are Columbus, Ohio, and Richmond, Virginia, where evictions are above historic averages by 48 and 300 percent respectively.

With eviction rates below historic averages in most cities and rental payment rates staying pretty steady throughout the pandemic, a massive new federal program to bail out tenants and rental property owners seems excessive.

That’s particularly true when most of the stimulus proposals on offer include expanded unemployment benefits and another round of $1,200 stimulus payments. Renters report using those types of benefits, which were included in the March coronavirus relief bill, to cover their housing costs earlier in the pandemic.

Whether the mercurial Trump will stick to his decision to walk away from stimulus talks remains to be seen. After tweeting that he was done negotiating, the president again took to Twitter to urge the passage of a bailout for the airlines and another round of stimulus checks.

It’s possible renters and homeowners will also benefit from Trump’s backtracking. If they don’t, they’ll have to wait until 2021 for more help from the feds.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2HXNOzo
via IFTTT

Before the Web: The 1980s Dream of a Free and Borderless Virtual World

v2

In the early 1990s, a group of mathematicians, misfits, hackers, and hobbyists calling themselves “the cypherpunks” came together around a shared belief that the internet would either demolish society’s artificial walls or lay the groundwork for an Orwellian state. They saw cryptography as a weapon against central planning and surveillance in this new virtual world.

The philosophical and technical ideas explored on the cypherpunks’ widely read email list, which launched in 1992, influenced the creation of bitcoin, WikiLeaks, Tor, BitTorrent, and the Silk Road. The cypherpunks anticipated the promise and the peril that lay ahead when the internet went mainstream, including new threats to privacy and the possibility of building virtual platforms for communication and trade that would be impervious to government regulators.

The first episode in Reason‘s new documentary series on the cypherpunks looks at a clash of ideas over how the internet could lead to a more free society, which was a precursor to the formation of the cypherpunk movement. It took place between the economist and entrepreneur Phil Salin, and the former Intel physicist Timothy C. May, who became known as the father of “crypto anarchy.” (Salin died of cancer in 1991 at the age of 41, and May passed away in 2018 at the age of 66.)

Salin was part of a community of young computer scientists in Silicon Valley, who the George Mason University economist Don Lavoie dubbed the “High Tech Hayekians” because of their efforts to blend the insights of Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek with computer science. The group included the pioneering technologists Mark S. Miller, Chip Morningstar, and E. Dean Tribble; Salin’s wife and business partner Gayle Pergamit; the software developer and science fiction writer Marc Stiegler; K. Eric Drexler, who is best known for his pioneering work in nanotechnology; and Christine Peterson, who later co-founded the Foresight Institute with Drexler.

Salin believed that personal computers linked up in a global communication network would make it possible to build a borderless, frictionless, global marketplace that would improve human coordination in the economy. May thought this would have negligible impact, positing instead a new world in cyberspace similar to what the science fiction writer Vernor Vinge had described in his novella True Names: an “other plane” completely shielded from government surveillance and control.

When May met Salin in 1987, it was before the release of the World Wide Web, but home computer hobbyists were already getting online in limited ways. Users could dial into servers through their phone lines to post to message boards, check their horoscopes, read the news, or go shopping.

While the e-commerce services from this period, such as CompuServe’s “Electronic Mall,” were basically digital versions of the old mail-order catalog, in a prescient 1991 essay published in Esther Dyson’s influential tech-industry newsletter, Salin foresaw how the internet would change the world by 1995, 2000, and beyond. The static roles of store and shopper, seller and buyer, author and reader—systems defined by their “one-way information flows”—would be replaced by new forms of media, he argued, enabling “two-way information flows.”

“The ability to buy or obtain exactly the information you need, when you want it, in the form you want it, is about to explode at a speed unmatched since the invention of printing,” Salin predicted.

But Salin was more than just a theorist. In the mid-1980s, he founded a dialup e-commerce startup called the American Information Exchange (AMIX). Users could buy or sell advice about the real estate market, writing software, or what companies to invest in.

Though it was similar in ways to services that would launch a decade later, AMIX was more than just an idea before its time. What set it apart was its grounding in political philosophy and its lofty goal of elevating individual decision making over central planning. Salin envisioned AMIX as a tool for improving human coordination that could lead to new levels of local knowledge sharing. It would help reduce transaction costs in the economy and serve as an alternative to central planning.

A “fluid, transaction-oriented market system, with two-way feedback,” Salin wrote in Dyson’s newsletter, would result in “crowding out monolithic, mostly government bureaucracies.”

AMIX’s chief architect was the pioneering software engineer Chip Morningstar, who had come from a stint at George Lucas’ production studio, where he oversaw the creation of the video game Habitat, one of the first virtual online communities.

After joining AMIX, Morningstar co-authored an essay about building Habitat, which echoed the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises’ famous claim that socialism is “impossible” with the assertion that, when building a world in software, “detailed central planning is impossible; don’t even try.”

“The world is just more complicated, people are more complicated, you can’t know what all their goals are,” Morningstar told Reason in a recent video interview. “What you can do is put them into an environment where certain things are possible.”

In December 1987, Morningstar decided to introduce May, who he had befriended through a science fiction fan club, to Salin.

“Chip said there’s this guy out in Santa Cruz that you ought to talk to,” May recalled.

As a scientist at Intel, May had solved an issue affecting the reliability of the company’s memory chips called the alpha particle problem. Rich on stock options, he had retired early, spending his days at the beach reading science fiction novels, thinking about how networked personal computers could turn some of their futuristic scenarios into reality.

“So I met with Phil…and he described how AMIX would work. And I said, ‘people aren’t going to be selling meaningless stuff, like surfboard recommendations.'”

In May’s view, an online information marketplace like AMIX would only have a major societal impact as a tool for undermining state power by shattering social and legal norms. He had a different vision of a virtual marketplace for any and all goods and services, which he dubbed “BlackNet,” or a “technological means of undermining all governments.” He suggested to Salin that he reconceive of AMIX as an anonymous platform for selling company trade secrets, “such as plans for that B-1 Bomber or a process for a technology.”

On AMIX, user activity was out in the open, but BlackNet would be impervious to government tracking and surveillance. Many people’s “first response” would be to say that BlackNet “won’t be allowed to happen,” May noted at the time. “Perhaps” but technology would “probably make it inevitable.”

This debate sparked May’s interest in cryptography and cryptocurrency and would lead him to co-found the cypherpunks. Salin had an objection that May couldn’t answer: There would be no way for sellers to get paid. The only anonymous form of payment was cash, and you couldn’t shove cash through a computer screen. “I admitted to Phil that the big problem was untraceable payments,” May recalled. But it “seemed like a solvable problem.” He remembered reading something on the topic. 

A couple of days after his meeting with Salin, May dug out his copy of the October 1985 issue of Communications of the ACM. The cover story was by the computer scientist David Chaum and titled, “Security Without Identification: Transaction Systems to Make Big Brother Obsolete,” which described a method for sending relatively anonymous payments using cryptography, which he would later attempt to commercialize through an early online startup called DigiCash.

That such a thing was possible “was an epiphany.” May recalled. “It was like standing on top of the mountain and seeing what’s out there.”

In 1988, AMIX was acquired by the software giant AutoDesk. A growing scene of young technologists came together around Salin and the High-Tech Hayekians, all working toward a common vision of enhancing human freedom through networked personal computing.

“It was a hothouse of ideas,” recalls Miller.

AutoDesk eventually abandoned AMIX, and Tim Berners-Lee’s World Wide Web became publicly available the same year Salin died. But Salin’s intellectual contributions and conflict with May had laid the groundwork for what would come next for the cypherpunks: the long effort to build a self-sovereign and anonymous form of digital money and the embrace of a branch of mathematics called cryptography, which they viewed as the key to personal liberation on the internet.

Written, shot, edited, narrated, and graphics by Jim Epstein; opening and closing graphics by Lex Villena; additional graphics assistance from Isaac Reese; audio production by Ian Keyser; archival research by Regan Taylor

Music: “Moving on” by Jay Denton, licensed through Artlist; “High Flight” by Michele Nobler, licensed through Artlist; “Machinery” by Kai Engel, Creative Commons — Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International

Photos: Hugh Daniel at the Ottawa Linux Symposium, Paul Wouters/Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0; John Gilmore, Paul Kitagaki Jr./ZUMA Press/Newscom; John Gilmore at Burning Man 2005, Creative Commons — Attribution 2.0 Generic License; Whitfield Diffie, Chuck Painter/Stanford News Service; David D. Friedman, Gage Skidmore, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0; Cody Wilson, Jay Janner/TNS/Newscom; Ross Ulbricht, freeross.net; Julian Assange, Dominic Lipinski/ZUMA Press/Newscom; London Protester, Tal Cohen/Photoshot/Newscom; Louis J. Freeh and Bill Clinton, Ron Sachs—CNP/Newscom; Bill Gates, Staff/Mirrorpix/Newscom; David Chaum, AP PHOTO/DUSAN VRANIC.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/36FKXFH
via IFTTT

House Antitrust Report Hits Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Google

sfphotosfour676311

If wishes were antitrust law… Surprising absolutely no one, U.S. lawmakers—who have been tossing whatever claims of bad deeds they can at Big Tech for a good while—are now angling for antitrust law changes that they say are necessary to rein in Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google. On Tuesday, the House of Representatives antitrust committee put out a 450-page report on the subject, suggesting that all four companies were too big for their britches and if the law didn’t currently ban their business practices, it should.

The report is the result of a 16-month-long investigation from the House Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law. As part of it, representatives barraged the CEOs of all four companies with inane and irrelevant questions in a public hearing. The investigation also included seven other hearings and the obtaining of “1,287,997 documents and communications; testimony from 38 witnesses; a hearing record that spans more than 1,800 pages; 38 submissions from 60 antitrust experts from across the political spectrum; and interviews with more than 240 market participants, former employees of the investigated platforms, and other individuals,” as well as discussions “with industry and government witnesses,” it states.

Whether we’re talking a smoking gun or a needle in a haystack, that should’ve been sufficient to find it. Instead, representatives seem to have given up on pretending that the investigation makes sense on traditional antitrust grounds.

There’s scant evidence of elements historically necessary for an antitrust violation. Rather, lawmakers are pushing a major overhaul of antitrust action, using these companies as a test case. The new House antitrust report calls for “for sweeping changes to federal laws so that government regulators can bring Silicon Valley back in check,” The Washington Post puts it. More:

The report recommends a significant overhaul of the federal government’s antitrust powers, including making it illegal for a company like Amazon or Google to give greater weight to their own products in their online marketplaces. Other suggested changes would empower consumers to bring lawsuits and give new legal tools to the Justice Department or FTC [Federal Trade Commission] to block future tech mergers.

The whole thing has followed the bipartisan playbook previously in use with Backpage and Craigslist, except applied to competitive practices instead of content moderation. That is: Pick the biggest examples of a tech company or phenomenon that the government wants to curb or stop, subpoena a bazillion internal documents under some trumped-up pretense of criminal activity, and go fishing for something that can be spun into a call for congressional action—action that won’t involve just (if at all) going after scapegoated companies for the originally alleged violation but changing the underpinnings of internet and business and speech law in a way more friendly to federal control.

(You can read the whole antitrust report here.)

Essentially, it faults Amazon, Apple, Google, and Facebook for making products that people want to use, improving those products based on market trends and consumer research, and engaging in very normal business practices (such as Amazon prioritizing the display of its own products, or Apple being a little choosy about what it allows in its app store), all of which it portrays as unconscionably nefarious. A lot of weight is given to what rival businesses have to say.

Ultimately, the subcommittee concludes that “Facebook has monopoly power in the market for social networking,” “Google has a monopoly in the markets for general online search and search advertising,” “Amazon has significant and durable market power in the U.S. online retail market,” and “Apple has significant and durable market power in the mobile operating system market.”

In response, it recommends an array of policy changes that would give the federal government unprecedented input in tech business practices and decisions, as well as new power to punish these companies and a relaxing of rules that allow them to push back. The report recommends, among other things:

• Structural separations and prohibitions of certain dominant platforms from operating in adjacent lines of business;

• Nondiscrimination requirements, prohibiting dominant platforms from engaging in self-preferencing, and requiring them to offer equal terms for equal products and services;

• Presumptive prohibition against future mergers and acquisitions by the dominant platforms;

• Taking additional measures to strengthen overall enforcement, including through overriding problematic precedents in the case law

• Restoring the federal antitrust agencies to full strength, by triggering civil penalties and other relief for “unfair methods of competition”rules, requiring the Federal Trade Commission to engage in regular data collection on concentration, enhancing public transparency and accountability of the agencies, requiring regular merger retrospectives, codifying stricter prohibitions on the revolving door, and increasing the budgets of the FTC and the Antitrust Division; and

• Strengthening private enforcement, through eliminating obstacles such as forced arbitration clauses, limits on class action formation, judicially created standards constraining what constitutes anantitrust injury, and unduly high pleading standards.

Tech Companies Respond

“All large organizations attract the attention of regulators, and we welcome that scrutiny,” Amazon responded in a blog post decrying the “fallacies…at the core of regulatory spit-balling on antitrust.”

“Large companies are not dominant by definition, and the presumption that success can only be the result of anti-competitive behavior is simply wrong,” Amazon continued:

The flawed thinking would have the primary effect of forcing millions of independent retailers out of online stores, thereby depriving these small businesses of one of the fastest and most profitable ways available to reach customers,” the company continued. “For consumers, the result would be less choice and higher prices. Far from enhancing competition, these uninformed notions would instead reduce it.

Apple and Google also issued public responses.

“Americans simply don’t want Congress to break Google’s products or harm the free services they use every day,” stated Google. “Google’s free products like Search, Maps and Gmail help millions of Americans and we’ve invested billions of dollars in research and development to build and improve them. We compete fairly in a fast-moving and highly competitive industry. We disagree with today’s reports, which feature outdated and inaccurate allegations from commercial rivals about Search and other services.”

Antitrust law is meant “to protect consumers, not help commercial rivals,” it added. Yet “many of the proposals bandied about in today’s reports—whether breaking up companies or undercutting Section 230—would cause real harm to consumers, America’s technology leadership and the U.S. economy—all for no clear gain.”

Apple responded that it “does not have a dominant market share in any category where we do business” and says that its app store—which features “close to two million apps today”—has “enabled new markets, new services and new products,” with app developers being the primary beneficiaries.

“Last year in the United States alone, the App Store facilitated $138 billion in commerce with over 85% of that amount accruing solely to third-party developers,” Apple stated, adding that its “commission rates are firmly in the mainstream of those charged by other app stores and gaming marketplaces.”

In other tech policy fiascos…

Trump is once again calling for the repeal of Section 230 of federal communications law, which protects internet companies and their users from certain legal liabilities. Here’s Justin Amash with some Section 230 truths:

(See Reason‘s video guide to Section 230 here.)


FREE MINDS

President Donald Trump’s administration is once again trying to make it harder for high-skilled immigrant workers to come here (and once again laying waste to the notion that they’re only interested in stopping illegal immigration). The latest Republican plan to revise the H-1B visa program “will require employers to pay H-1B workers significantly higher wages, narrow the types of degrees that could qualify an applicant and shorten the length of visas for certain contract workers,” The Wall Street Journal reports:

Ken Cuccinelli, the No. 2 official at DHS, said on a news conference call Tuesday that he expects about one-third of H-1B visa applications would be rejected under the new set of rules. […]

The policy changes have been expected since 2017, when the administration first announced intentions to revamp the H-1B visa program. Even before these formal changes were announced, however, the Trump administration tightened issuance of H-1B visas, rejecting 15.1% of applications in 2019 compared with 6.1% in 2016, according to figures from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.


FREE MARKETS

Trump won’t accept the Democrats’ latest stimulus package (known as the HEROES Act), per his tweets yesterday. “Nancy Pelosi is asking for $2.4 Trillion Dollars […] We made a very generous offer of $1.6 Trillion Dollars and, as usual, she is not negotiating in good faith,” Trump tweeted Tuesday afternoon.

“I have instructed my representatives to stop negotiating until after the election when, immediately after I win, we will pass a major Stimulus Bill that focuses on hardworking Americans and Small Business,” Trump continued. (See Eric Boehm for more.) Trump does, however, think that it’s urgent that a new Supreme Court justice is confirmed and that the government give airlines more money:

Yesterday evening, he also tweeted that he wants to send $1,200 stimulus checks to people immediately:


QUICK HITS

• Trump adviser Stephen Miller announced yesterday that he has tested positive for COVID-19.

• In total, around 20 people who work at the White House complex have contracted COVID-19 since August. A viral tweet that announced 123 cases is counting everyone infected at the White House since the start of the pandemic.

• Another “child sex trafficking bust” that wasn’t:

• Reminder:

• Facebook says it’s banning groups dedicated to the conspiracy theory QAnon.

• A grand jury in Texas has indicted Netflix for the publicity of Cuties, a French drama critical of the over-sexualization of tween and teen girls that has been demonized by many prominent conservatives (though many admit they have not seen the film). Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) and others have argued—largely based on a Netflix poster for the film—that Cuties does the opposite of what it actually does. Now, Netflix is being accused of promoting “lewd visual material.”

• Check out Reason‘s new history of cypherpunks:

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/33CjHpv
via IFTTT

House Antitrust Report Hits Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Google

sfphotosfour676311

If wishes were antitrust law… Surprising absolutely no one, U.S. lawmakers—who have been tossing whatever claims of bad deeds they can at Big Tech for a good while—are now angling for antitrust law changes that they say are necessary to rein in Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google. On Tuesday, the House of Representatives antitrust committee put out a 450-page report on the subject, suggesting that all four companies were too big for their britches and if the law didn’t currently ban their business practices, it should.

The report is the result of a 16-month-long investigation from the House Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law. As part of it, representatives barraged the CEOs of all four companies with inane and irrelevant questions in a public hearing. The investigation also included seven other hearings and the obtaining of “1,287,997 documents and communications; testimony from 38 witnesses; a hearing record that spans more than 1,800 pages; 38 submissions from 60 antitrust experts from across the political spectrum; and interviews with more than 240 market participants, former employees of the investigated platforms, and other individuals,” as well as discussions “with industry and government witnesses,” it states.

Whether we’re talking a smoking gun or a needle in a haystack, that should’ve been sufficient to find it. Instead, representatives seem to have given up on pretending that the investigation makes sense on traditional antitrust grounds.

There’s scant evidence of elements historically necessary for an antitrust violation. Rather, lawmakers are pushing a major overhaul of antitrust action, using these companies as a test case. The new House antitrust report calls for “for sweeping changes to federal laws so that government regulators can bring Silicon Valley back in check,” The Washington Post puts it. More:

The report recommends a significant overhaul of the federal government’s antitrust powers, including making it illegal for a company like Amazon or Google to give greater weight to their own products in their online marketplaces. Other suggested changes would empower consumers to bring lawsuits and give new legal tools to the Justice Department or FTC [Federal Trade Commission] to block future tech mergers.

The whole thing has followed the bipartisan playbook previously in use with Backpage and Craigslist, except applied to competitive practices instead of content moderation. That is: Pick the biggest examples of a tech company or phenomenon that the government wants to curb or stop, subpoena a bazillion internal documents under some trumped-up pretense of criminal activity, and go fishing for something that can be spun into a call for congressional action—action that won’t involve just (if at all) going after scapegoated companies for the originally alleged violation but changing the underpinnings of internet and business and speech law in a way more friendly to federal control.

(You can read the whole antitrust report here.)

Essentially, it faults Amazon, Apple, Google, and Facebook for making products that people want to use, improving those products based on market trends and consumer research, and engaging in very normal business practices (such as Amazon prioritizing the display of its own products, or Apple being a little choosy about what it allows in its app store), all of which it portrays as unconscionably nefarious. A lot of weight is given to what rival businesses have to say.

Ultimately, the subcommittee concludes that “Facebook has monopoly power in the market for social networking,” “Google has a monopoly in the markets for general online search and search advertising,” “Amazon has significant and durable market power in the U.S. online retail market,” and “Apple has significant and durable market power in the mobile operating system market.”

In response, it recommends an array of policy changes that would give the federal government unprecedented input in tech business practices and decisions, as well as new power to punish these companies and a relaxing of rules that allow them to push back. The report recommends, among other things:

• Structural separations and prohibitions of certain dominant platforms from operating in adjacent lines of business;

• Nondiscrimination requirements, prohibiting dominant platforms from engaging in self-preferencing, and requiring them to offer equal terms for equal products and services;

• Presumptive prohibition against future mergers and acquisitions by the dominant platforms;

• Taking additional measures to strengthen overall enforcement, including through overriding problematic precedents in the case law

• Restoring the federal antitrust agencies to full strength, by triggering civil penalties and other relief for “unfair methods of competition”rules, requiring the Federal Trade Commission to engage in regular data collection on concentration, enhancing public transparency and accountability of the agencies, requiring regular merger retrospectives, codifying stricter prohibitions on the revolving door, and increasing the budgets of the FTC and the Antitrust Division; and

• Strengthening private enforcement, through eliminating obstacles such as forced arbitration clauses, limits on class action formation, judicially created standards constraining what constitutes anantitrust injury, and unduly high pleading standards.

Tech Companies Respond

“All large organizations attract the attention of regulators, and we welcome that scrutiny,” Amazon responded in a blog post decrying the “fallacies…at the core of regulatory spit-balling on antitrust.”

“Large companies are not dominant by definition, and the presumption that success can only be the result of anti-competitive behavior is simply wrong,” Amazon continued:

The flawed thinking would have the primary effect of forcing millions of independent retailers out of online stores, thereby depriving these small businesses of one of the fastest and most profitable ways available to reach customers,” the company continued. “For consumers, the result would be less choice and higher prices. Far from enhancing competition, these uninformed notions would instead reduce it.

Apple and Google also issued public responses.

“Americans simply don’t want Congress to break Google’s products or harm the free services they use every day,” stated Google. “Google’s free products like Search, Maps and Gmail help millions of Americans and we’ve invested billions of dollars in research and development to build and improve them. We compete fairly in a fast-moving and highly competitive industry. We disagree with today’s reports, which feature outdated and inaccurate allegations from commercial rivals about Search and other services.”

Antitrust law is meant “to protect consumers, not help commercial rivals,” it added. Yet “many of the proposals bandied about in today’s reports—whether breaking up companies or undercutting Section 230—would cause real harm to consumers, America’s technology leadership and the U.S. economy—all for no clear gain.”

Apple responded that it “does not have a dominant market share in any category where we do business” and says that its app store—which features “close to two million apps today”—has “enabled new markets, new services and new products,” with app developers being the primary beneficiaries.

“Last year in the United States alone, the App Store facilitated $138 billion in commerce with over 85% of that amount accruing solely to third-party developers,” Apple stated, adding that its “commission rates are firmly in the mainstream of those charged by other app stores and gaming marketplaces.”

In other tech policy fiascos…

Trump is once again calling for the repeal of Section 230 of federal communications law, which protects internet companies and their users from certain legal liabilities. Here’s Justin Amash with some Section 230 truths:

(See Reason‘s video guide to Section 230 here.)


FREE MINDS

President Donald Trump’s administration is once again trying to make it harder for high-skilled immigrant workers to come here (and once again laying waste to the notion that they’re only interested in stopping illegal immigration). The latest Republican plan to revise the H-1B visa program “will require employers to pay H-1B workers significantly higher wages, narrow the types of degrees that could qualify an applicant and shorten the length of visas for certain contract workers,” The Wall Street Journal reports:

Ken Cuccinelli, the No. 2 official at DHS, said on a news conference call Tuesday that he expects about one-third of H-1B visa applications would be rejected under the new set of rules. […]

The policy changes have been expected since 2017, when the administration first announced intentions to revamp the H-1B visa program. Even before these formal changes were announced, however, the Trump administration tightened issuance of H-1B visas, rejecting 15.1% of applications in 2019 compared with 6.1% in 2016, according to figures from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.


FREE MARKETS

Trump won’t accept the Democrats’ latest stimulus package (known as the HEROES Act), per his tweets yesterday. “Nancy Pelosi is asking for $2.4 Trillion Dollars […] We made a very generous offer of $1.6 Trillion Dollars and, as usual, she is not negotiating in good faith,” Trump tweeted Tuesday afternoon.

“I have instructed my representatives to stop negotiating until after the election when, immediately after I win, we will pass a major Stimulus Bill that focuses on hardworking Americans and Small Business,” Trump continued. (See Eric Boehm for more.) Trump does, however, think that it’s urgent that a new Supreme Court justice is confirmed and that the government give airlines more money:

Yesterday evening, he also tweeted that he wants to send $1,200 stimulus checks to people immediately:


QUICK HITS

• Trump adviser Stephen Miller announced yesterday that he has tested positive for COVID-19.

• In total, around 20 people who work at the White House complex have contracted COVID-19 since August. A viral tweet that announced 123 cases is counting everyone infected at the White House since the start of the pandemic.

• Another “child sex trafficking bust” that wasn’t:

• Reminder:

• Facebook says it’s banning groups dedicated to the conspiracy theory QAnon.

• A grand jury in Texas has indicted Netflix for the publicity of Cuties, a French drama critical of the over-sexualization of tween and teen girls that has been demonized by many prominent conservatives (though many admit they have not seen the film). Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) and others have argued—largely based on a Netflix poster for the film—that Cuties does the opposite of what it actually does. Now, Netflix is being accused of promoting “lewd visual material.”

• Check out Reason‘s new history of cypherpunks:

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/33CjHpv
via IFTTT

Why a Broad View of Academic Freedom Is Essential

This is the third in a series of five guest posts we are publishing this week as the co-authors of a new book published by Oxford University Press titled “Unassailable Ideas: How Unwritten Rules and Social Media Shape Discourse in American Higher Education.” The previous guest posts from this series can be found here and here.

Is there an academic freedom problem on campuses? It could be argued that the answer is no, because each year college instructors and researchers publish thousands of papers, teach thousands of classes, and issue thousands of social media posts that generate no controversy at all. But the scope of a freedom is defined by its boundaries. As we wrote:

By analogy, consider the scope of a different freedom: freedom of expression under the First Amendment … [I]t is precisely when the boundaries are tested that the protective power of [a freedom] springs into action. We wouldn’t need a First Amendment to protect the right to make completely uncontroversial statements such as “I like ice cream.” Rather, the power of the First Amendment is that it protects people’s right to say and write things that they might otherwise be prohibited from (or punished for) expressing.

This provides a useful framing for considering the scope of academic freedom at universities. By analogy, the scope of that freedom is only truly clarified when it is tested. If we want to understand where the boundaries lie, the fact that the overwhelming majority of academic research and publications raise no academic freedom issue doesn’t give us useful information…..

We need those protections for the tiny minority of cases where a college teacher or

researcher says or publishes something that has potential value in academic discourse, but that also generates controversy, opposition, and pressures on the institution (and often from within the institution as well) to engage in censorship. If academic freedom can’t provide protection in those cases, then it becomes a hollow concept devoid of any real meaning…..

The problem with an approach to academic freedom that gives what amounts to veto power to social media mobs is that it presumes that the social norms underlying the backlash always set the right parameters around permissibility. History teaches us what a risky assumption that is.

To see why, consider a thought experiment. Imagine that it is the 1950s, but with the modification that the same social media technology we have today is in place. Now imagine that a professor in that environment makes a highly visible public statement arguing that same-sex marriage should be permitted and be on equal footing with marriage between a man and a woman.

Today a rapidly growing majority of Americans, and an even higher fraction of people in campus communities (and the Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges), agree with that position. But given the social climate that was in place in the 1950s, it’s easy to see that this would have been immediately met with a storm of social media opposition. Within days, the professor’s university would likely have issued a statement saying that the professor’s views do not reflect the values of the university. It’s likely that no mainstream academic journal would have allowed the professor to publish a paper expounding this view, and his or her future career prospects would have been imperiled.

As this and many other examples that could be constructed illustrate, historically speaking, when it comes to opinions that might generate backlash, the particular set of assumptions that were in place in any particular era don’t always stand the test of time. Unless we believe that we have, against all historical precedent, arrived at a moment when the worldview that predominates on campuses is one that has all the right answers on all sociopolitical issues, we should be cautious about using that worldview as a source of authority on the limits of academic freedom.

A far better approach is to let university teachers and researchers freely voice and publish their opinions and research assertions, including those that people on social media might find offensive. Social media criticism, when it comes, should be part of the dialog, but it shouldn’t be given the power to stop the dialog.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3jF62DN
via IFTTT

Federal Regulations Have Forced Lower-Skilled Workers Out of Banking Jobs

lrphotos130598

As the federal government has piled new regulations on the financial system, lower-skilled employees have been forced out of the industry—a tradeoff that hasn’t necessarily helped consumers.

“It’s just raising the costs,” Christos Makridis, a scholar with the Mercatus Center, a free market think tank at George Mason University, tells Reason.

Makridis is one of the authors of a new study, along with Alberto Rossi, that investigates an under-acknowledged effect of federal regulations on the financial services sector imposed since the Great Recession. More regulation has brought increased automation, and lower-skilled workers have been pushed out as firms seek to hire fewer but more highly-specialized science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workers.

The study notes that regulations on the financial services sector have increased significantly more in recent years than regulations on other businesses. The Dodd-Frank bill, which was passed in the wake of the 2008 financial collapse and, among other things, created the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, is one of the main culprits.

In the report, Makridis and Rossi say that the financial services sector has seen a 50 percent increase in regulation between 2008 and 2017. For every 10 percent increase in regulation, STEM employment increases by 5.3 percent, they report. The study also found that increases in regulation caused wages to increase, as financial firms hired fewer people working for more money.

“Financial services firms may have sought to ‘escape’ regulatory exposure by hiring STEM workers who could automate more tasks and pursue activities outside the scope of existing regulation,” the report concludes.

Older, more established firms have the ability to weather more of these expensive new regulations. Big banks have the resources to hire the legal teams that let them dodge regulatory restrictions while smaller ones don’t.

Despite the Obama administration’s desire to make the financial services sector more resilient when economic downturns happen, Makridis notes, “the surge in regulation that occurred from the Dodd-Frank legislation led to heightened polarization in the labor market where firms responded by hiring more STEM workers and firing a lot of non-STEM workers, middle- and lower-skilled jobs.” Big banks respond to regulation by automation, and as a consequence replace lower-skilled workers with people who have greater technical skills and are thus able to operate these automated systems.

The banking system might be more secure, but a lot of former workers in the industry probably aren’t.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3daozWm
via IFTTT