via:

Beware, Fellow Plutocrats, the Pitchforks Are Coming

[ed. Notice this talk was given in 2014. Things are much worse now and the pitchforks have been a long time coming. Maybe last week's killing of a United Healthcare executive indicates a boiling point (or data point).]

Nick Hanauer: You probably don't know me, but I am one of those .01 percenters that you hear about and read about, and I am by any reasonable definition a plutocrat. And tonight, what I would like to do is speak directly to other plutocrats, to my people, because it feels like it's time for us all to have a chat. Like most plutocrats, I too am a proud and unapologetic capitalist. I have founded, cofounded or funded over 30 companies across a range of industries. I was the first non-family investor in Amazon.com. I cofounded a company called aQuantive that we sold to Microsoft for 6.4 billion dollars. My friends and I, we own a bank. I tell you this — (Laughter) —unbelievable, right?

I tell you this to show that my life is like most plutocrats. I have a broad perspective on capitalism and business, and I have been rewarded obscenely for that with a life that most of you all can't even imagine: multiple homes, a yacht, my own plane, etc., etc., etc. But let's be honest: I am not the smartest person you've ever met. I am certainly not the hardest working. I was a mediocre student. I'm not technical at all. I can't write a word of code. Truly, my success is the consequence of spectacular luck, of birth, of circumstance and of timing. But I am actually pretty good at a couple of things. One, I have an unusually high tolerance for risk, and the other is I have a good sense, a good intuition about what will happen in the future, and I think that that intuition about the future is the essence of good entrepreneurship.

So what do I see in our future today, you ask? I see pitchforks, as in angry mobs with pitchforks, because while people like us plutocrats are living beyond the dreams of avarice, the other 99 percent of our fellow citizens are falling farther and farther behind. In 1980, the top one percent of Americans shared about eight percent of national [income], while the bottom 50 percent of Americans shared 18 percent. Thirty years later, today, the top one percent shares over 20 percent of national [income], while the bottom 50 percent of Americans share 12 or 13. If the trend continues, the top one percent will share over 30 percent of national [income] in another 30 years, while the bottom 50 percent of Americans will share just six.

You see, the problem isn't that we have some inequality. Some inequality is necessary for a high-functioning capitalist democracy. The problem is that inequality is at historic highs today and it's getting worse every day. And if wealth, power, and income continue to concentrate at the very tippy top, our society will change from a capitalist democracy to a neo-feudalist rentier society like 18th-century France. That was France before the revolution and the mobs with the pitchforks.

So I have a message for my fellow plutocrats and zillionaires and for anyone who lives in a gated bubble world: Wake up. Wake up. It cannot last. Because if we do not do something to fix the glaring economic inequities in our society, the pitchforks will come for us, for no free and open society can long sustain this kind of rising economic inequality. It has never happened. There are no examples. You show me a highly unequal society, and I will show you a police state or an uprising. The pitchforks will come for us if we do not address this. It's not a matter of if, it's when. And it will be terrible when they come for everyone, but particularly for people like us plutocrats.

I know I must sound like some liberal do-gooder. I'm not. I'm not making a moral argument that economic inequality is wrong. What I am arguing is that rising economic inequality is stupid and ultimately self-defeating. Rising inequality doesn't just increase our risks from pitchforks, but it's also terrible for business too. So the model for us rich guys should be Henry Ford. When Ford famously introduced the $5 day, which was twice the prevailing wage at the time, he didn't just increase the productivity of his factories, he converted exploited autoworkers who were poor into a thriving middle class who could now afford to buy the products that they made. Ford intuited what we now know is true, that an economy is best understood as an ecosystem and characterized by the same kinds of feedback loops you find in a natural ecosystem, a feedback loop between customers and businesses. Raising wages increases demand, which increases hiring, which in turn increases wages and demand and profits, and that virtuous cycle of increasing prosperity is precisely what is missing from today's economic recovery.

And this is why we need to put behind us the trickle-down policies that so dominate both political parties and embrace something I call middle-out economics. Middle-out economics rejects the neoclassical economic idea that economies are efficient, linear, mechanistic, that they tend towards equilibrium and fairness, and instead embraces the 21st-century idea that economies are complex, adaptive, ecosystemic, that they tend away from equilibrium and toward inequality, that they're not efficient at all but are effective if well managed. This 21st-century perspective allows you to clearly see that capitalism does not work by [efficiently] allocating existing resources. It works by [efficiently] creating new solutions to human problems. The genius of capitalism is that it is an evolutionary solution-finding system. It rewards people for solving other people's problems. The difference between a poor society and a rich society, obviously, is the degree to which that society has generated solutions in the form of products for its citizens. The sum of the solutions that we have in our society really is our prosperity, and this explains why companies like Google and Amazon and Microsoft and Apple and the entrepreneurs who created those companies have contributed so much to our nation's prosperity.

This 21st-century perspective also makes clear that what we think of as economic growth is best understood as the rate at which we solve problems. But that rate is totally dependent upon how many problem solvers — diverse, able problem solvers — we have, and thus how many of our fellow citizens actively participate, both as entrepreneurs who can offer solutions, and as customers who consume them. But this maximizing participation thing doesn't happen by accident. It doesn't happen by itself. It requires effort and investment, which is why all highly prosperous capitalist democracies are characterized by massive investments in the middle class and the infrastructure that they depend on.

We plutocrats need to get this trickle-down economics thing behind us, this idea that the better we do, the better everyone else will do. It's not true. How could it be? I earn 1,000 times the median wage, but I do not buy 1,000 times as much stuff, do I? I actually bought two pairs of these pants, what my partner Mike calls my manager pants. I could have bought 2,000 pairs, but what would I do with them? (Laughter) How many haircuts can I get? How often can I go out to dinner? No matter how wealthy a few plutocrats get, we can never drive a great national economy. Only a thriving middle class can do that.

[More (transcript)]:

***

[ed. This is what gets me about MAGA idiots (and they are idiots for being punked into believing that it's the libs, immigrants, welfare moms, government workers, teachers, scientists - anyone (this week) other than merciless corporations and plutocrats who are actually in control and screwing up this country). Whether you're liberal or conservative we're all in the same boat, yet they've effectively turned us against each other. Of course there are cultural differences (as there always have been) but if you're middle class - high, middle, low, doesn't matter - and aspire to better economic opportunities or just protection from the precariousness of a sudden health problem or unexpected bill, how does electing a lying kleptocratic billionaire as your standard bearer improve your/our situation? We're all about to find out. See also: How one of the world’s richest men is avoiding $8 billion in taxes (Seattle Times). ($8000 million dollars. Doesn't like to pay taxes).]

Using Google Lens in a Chrome Browser

You might have noticed Google’s ongoing efforts to stuff artificial intelligence features into every corner of its products, and that’s certainly the case with Chrome. One tweak recently made to the desktop browser is the addition of a Google Lens button that pops up every time you click inside the address bar.

According to Google, this shortcut is intended to help you “easily select, search and ask questions about anything you see on the web” and actually builds on the functionality that was already there: For some time, you’ve been able to right-click on an image and choose Search with Google Lens or find the feature in the Chrome menu.

Now it’s more accessible than ever, and you can quickly refine and edit searches via Google Lens, too (it works a lot like Circle to Search, which is essentially Google Lens repackaged for mobile devices). Here’s how to use the new feature and the various ways it can prove useful.

The best uses for Google Lens in Chrome

The example case Google typically gives when it comes to Google Lens is shopping. You see a bag, a lampshade, or a sneaker that you like, and you can run a visual search for it. Results pop up on the screen from retailers, meaning you can click through and buy it or at least figure out what it is.

It makes more sense than running a traditional Google search and describing what you’re looking at—” a boxy-looking suitcase with black trim and ridges along the side” is far less precise, for example. By enlisting the help of Google Lens, you’ll get more useful results more often.

We’ve written about Google Lens several times over the years, and it’s not just for shopping—it’s also for looking up information about the world around you (or, in this case, the browser tab in front of you). You can use the Lens functionality to identify a piece of art, a person, a breed of dog, or a type of plant, for instance.

You can also use Google Lens to look up context and further information about a store, a landmark, or an album cover you’ve come across. Say you’re watching a video that features a statue you think you’ve seen before. You can use Google Lens to run a search to find out the name of the statue and where it’s located.

As Google’s AI gets smarter, Google Lens becomes even more helpful. It can now solve math equations and translate text, whether inside an image or video or displayed plainly on the webpage. With text selection included, too, you can run a normal Google search for any word or phrase you come across.

How to use Google Lens in Chrome

The Google Lens integration inside Google Chrome on the desktop is pretty seamless: With any page open in a tab, click the address bar at the top of the screen, and the Google Lens button will appear. If the website URL takes up the whole address bar, you’ll see the Google Lens icon, which looks like a camera.

Click the Google Lens button to enter search mode. If you want to run a visual search for something in an image or video still, you can click and drag to draw a box around it. Alternatively, just click once on an image or something inside an image to have it automatically selected (though this can be a bit hit-and-miss).

After the initial search has been run, you can click and drag the handles around the edges of the selection to change its boundaries. You can also click and drag somewhere else on the page to run a new search. Your results pop up in a new panel on the right—click on the panel to visit a search result page, or use the icons in the top right corner to pin the panel inside Chrome or close it down. (...)

Google Lens works with text, too. If you activate the feature and hover the cursor over a text block, the icon will change. You can then click and drag to highlight the necessary words. This runs a more conventional Google search in the panel on the right, and you’ll also see options pop up on the page to Copy or Translate the text.

by David Nield, Gizmodo | Read more:
Image: Google

[ed. With all the hype, I've been skeptical of anything described as an AI 'improvement' but this feature might actually be useful.]

via:

via:

Natsunoya Tea House, Alewa Heights, Honolulu

Image: markk

Flora Purim

[ed. Amazing. Still sounds as vibrant as she did 50 years ago.]

Form Letter

Thank you for choosing United Healthcare for your healthcare needs. After a careful review of the claim submitted for emergency services on December 4, 2024, we regret to inform you that your request for coverage has been denied.

Our denial is based on the following findings:

1. Lack of Prior Authorization:

Our records indicate that you failed to obtain prior authorization before seeking care for the gunshot wound to your chest. While we acknowledge the emergent nature of the situation, our policy requires that all non-preventative services, including “unexpected chest injuries,” be pre-approved through our 24/7 Prior Authorization Hotline. Unfortunately, our hotline received no such call during your ambulance transport or at any point before your admission to the emergency room.

1. Failure to Prove Medical Necessity:

The submitted documentation does not sufficiently demonstrate that treatment for a penetrating chest wound meets the definition of “medically necessary.” Our guidelines specify that life-threatening conditions must be substantiated with a second opinion from a network provider, preferably before care is rendered.

1. Alternative Options Not Explored:

Based on our retrospective analysis, alternative, more cost-effective treatment options—such as a virtual telehealth consult or at-home first aid—were not attempted prior to your emergency room visit. We understand that you were actively “bleeding out,” but this does not exempt you from exploring lower-cost care pathways.

1. Out-of-Network Care:

The emergency room where you received treatment is not within our network. While City General is geographically closer to the location of your shooting, our network partner, DiscountCare Clinic, is only 25 miles away and equipped with staplers and gauze for such injuries.

Next Steps: You may file an appeal within 30 days if you believe this decision is incorrect. Appeals must include:

• A notarized letter from the attending physician, explaining why you thought you were entitled to not bleed to death while waiting for approval.
• Evidence that your injuries were, in fact, serious enough to merit immediate attention, such as photos, videos, or live reenactments.

We encourage you to familiarize yourself with your plan benefits and utilize in-network providers for future incidents. Please do not hesitate to reach out to our customer support team if you have questions about this

Sincerely and in good health, 

United Healthcare

P.S. Remember: Preventative care is the best care! If you’d like, we can help you schedule your annual physical or connect you to a mindfulness seminar to prevent future traumatic injuries.

***

Thank you for your recent appeal regarding the denial of coverage for your emergency room visit on December 5, 2024. We have carefully reviewed the additional information you provided, including the attending physician’s notes, photographic evidence of your gunshot wound, and the security footage of the event.

After a thorough re-evaluation of your case, we regret to inform you that the original denial decision has been upheld. Our reasons for this decision are outlined below:

Insufficient Documentation Supporting Medical Necessity:

While we acknowledge the physician’s statement that your “life was in immediate danger,” we remain unconvinced that the treatment you received in the emergency room was the only appropriate course of action. Specifically, we find the decision to intubate and transfuse blood unnecessarily aggressive when other cost-effective options, such as applying firm pressure to the wound with a clean cloth, could have been attempted first.

1. Failure to Contact Prior Authorization Hotline: Your appeal asserts that you were “unable to call” due to being “unconscious” after sustaining the gunshot wound. While we empathize with your condition, we remind you that our Prior Authorization Hotline is available 24/7 and can be contacted by a friend, family member, or even a concerned bystander. The failure to delegate this responsibility during your medical emergency further substantiates our denial.
2. Out-of-Network Services: As stated previously, City General Emergency Department is not part of our network. While we understand that DiscountCare Clinic is 25 miles away and does not operate ambulances, the choice to seek care at a non-network facility remains inconsistent with your plan’s cost-saving guidelines. Our analysis indicates that driving oneself, despite injury, or calling a rideshare service might have provided a viable and more affordable alternative.
3. Policy Exclusions on Firearm-Related Injuries: Your plan explicitly excludes coverage for injuries resulting from “unapproved use of firearms.” As no evidence was provided to confirm the shooting was accidental or unavoidable, we are unable to overturn this aspect of the denial.

Next Steps: This decision is final. You may choose to escalate your appeal to the Independent Medical Review Board (IMRB) at your own expense. If the IMRB overturns our decision, you may be eligible for partial reimbursement minus a $5,000 “Claim Reconsideration Fee.”

We encourage you to consult our Member Handbook to better understand your plan benefits and avoid similar misunderstandings in the future. Should you find your current coverage unsatisfactory, we invite you to explore our new UNH UltraBasic plan, which offers even fewer benefits at an even lower premium.

Sincerely and in good health,
United Healthcare

P.S. Please note: Our appeals process is designed to promote proactive healthcare decision-making. While this unfortunate incident did not meet policy requirements, we commend your efforts to stay alive and wish you a speedy recovery.

***

We understand that dealing with both a tragic loss and a denied claim can be overwhelming. For this reason, we encourage you to visit our Wellness & Resilience Resource Hub, where you can access free breathing exercises, gratitude journaling tips, and an article titled, “The Healing Power of Forgiveness.”

While these tools cannot replace your loss, they can help you cope with the emotional toll of this situation. Sometimes, focusing on the positive can make all the difference.

via: Reddit

Murder and Social Murder

The Case of UnitedHealth CEO Brian Thompson

Rolling Stone weighed in on what those who check into Twitter or TikTok have probably already noticed: Social Media Has Little Sympathy for Murdered Health Insurance Exec. At this point, there is comparatively little new news about the killing of UnitedHealth’s Brian Thompson in Manhattan even though it’s over a full day since the event. Police are under great pressure to solve a high profile murder quickly. The perp apparently was in the vicinity before the shooting, it’s not yet clear how long, although some opine not very long. He shot Thompson twice, once in the calf and once in the torso. Gun mavens (we have a tweetstorm below) explain how the weapons choice and gun handling caught on film reveal him not to be a pro.

In case you have not heard, UnitedHealth was a standout denier of insurance claims, which is a fraud that these companies get away with on a pervasive basis. Our tale of tweets below shows not just barely coded views that Thompson’s death was karma, that the claim denials from which he profited resulted not just in dozens but likely hundreds, even thousands of preventable deaths, even though vigilante justice is not a socially desirable way to achieve redress.

Frankly, I am surprised something like this has not happened sooner. It’s not hard to think of cases of the C-suite killing people for fun and profit. Ford Pintos. Opioid makers with addiction creating sales strategies, with Purdue Pharma the lead but far from only actor. Vioxx, where Merck gamed the clinical trial data to hide extra heart attack deaths, which were so frequent that when the drug was taken off the market, that US mortality rate declined. Monsanto (now Bayer), where the company would have its staff apply the Roundup weedkiller only in heavy-duty protective gear, but never issued similarly stern warnings to customers.

A close ally during the foreclosure crisis described some of his cases from his days as a class action and even individual tort lawyer on mesothelioma cases. The end state of the cancer is horrific, with the patients often having their ribs break as the cancer both fills up their chest cavity and greatly constricts their breathing capacity. In one, which I gather was not atypical, the defense attorneys kept deposing him, 10 hours a day, days on end, in his deathbed in the hospital. They were not just trying to catch him in an inconsistency. They were trying to kill him faster via the stress and reduction of sleep so he would not be able to testify in court.

He lived long enough to do so. The spectacle of him being wheeled in, with an oxygen tube and dressed to show his distended upper torso was so appalling to jury that it was not hard to establish that he had been desperately harmed, merely firming up how the defendant was responsible.

My contact had to stop doing these cases. It was too psychologically draining even though he would win big awards.

And then the defense bar got good at finding ways to escape meaningful punishment. For instance, Alabama had once been a good venue for this sort of case (forgive me for sparing you why). But the state Supreme Court is elected. Those races soon attracted more in campaign donations than any judicial contest in the US. At one point, the chief justice race got $13 million in donations, far more than the governor’s race.

The result was any large damage award in Alabama would be cut back on appeals to $1 million, as in couch lint for a big company.

by Yves Smith, Naked Capitalism |  Read more:

Image: Stefan Jeremiah/Associated Press

[ed. See also: Insurer Reverses Policy That Would Have Limited Anesthesia Periods; and, Torrent of Anger for Health Insurance Industry Follows C.E.O.’s Killing (NYT):]

“Thoughts and deductibles to the family,” read one comment underneath a video of the shooting posted online by CNN. “Unfortunately my condolences are out-of-network.”

More:

"The business run by Thompson brought in $281 billion in revenue last year, making it the largest subsidiary of the Minnetonka, Minnesota-based UnitedHealth Group. His $10.2 million annual pay package, including salary, bonus and stock options awards, made him one of the company’s highest-paid executives."

Tom Gauld: My Jetpack

Tom Gauld
via: My JetPack

Moana 2

If you want a quick explanation of why Moana 2 is on target to gross more than a billion dollars worldwide (it’s already made $400m in less than a week), you need only to look back to 2023, when the original Moana – a seven-year-old movie at the time – topped the list of the most-streamed movies in the United States.

The only other pre-2020 movie in the top 10 was Disney stablemate Frozen, which made way more in theaters than the first Moana did. Moana also ranked fourth among all movies in 2022, second in both 2021 and 2020, and, well, that takes us to the beginning of its home service, Disney+, roughly five years ago. By these rough but seemingly undeniable metrics, it seems reasonable to claim that Moana, a movie that in 2016 was outgrossed by both its fellow Disney release Zootopia and its holiday-season rival Sing, is the most-watched family film of the 2020s. If Elsa from Frozen was hoping to hang on to that particular title, she may have to let it go.

Of course, Frozen still has a hypnotic hold on the younger demos; look at any Halloween of the past decade, and you’ll see plenty of little Elsas (and a few Annas) roaming the streets. Beyond Frozen’s particular innovation of including not one but two singing princesses, one with bona fide superpowers, Disney animated movies have always flexed remarkable staying power, especially when they sing catchy songs.

Moana has a princess (of sorts, even if she claims that she’s just the “daughter of the chief”), a great song score (featuring contributions from Lin-Manuel Miranda of Hamilton fame), and a sweet, relatable story about that chief’s daughter (Auliʻi Cravalho) yearning for adventure, then finding it when she takes it upon herself to seek out demigod Maui (Dwayne Johnson) to help save her native island. Still, even The Rock playing what’s arguably his best and most fitting big-screen role doesn’t fully explain why Moana has been able to consistently out-stream the blockbuster likes of Frozen, or newer and also-beloved titles such as Encanto. 

Like nearly every parent who’s had a child since 2010 or so, I have some experience in this area. My daughter was just one year old when Moana was released in the fall of 2016, so she was barely ready to watch a movie for more than 20 minutes or so at home, let alone go out and see one in theaters. But I went to the press screening to file a review, and though I’d enjoyed plenty of other Disney cartoons, I was struck by my emotional response to this one.

               

 ~ How far she went: why did the Moana films become such a phenomenon? (The Guardian)

***

Parents of young children should let loose a hearty “chee hoo” upon the Thanksgiving-timed release of “Moana 2.” That’s the long weekend’s entertainment sorted, with a sequel that comes close to the soaring storytelling and exhilarating anthems of the first film, which delighted young audiences eight years ago, resulting in countless Halloween costumes and babies belting about how far they’ll go.

That first film, which celebrates the strength and power of young girls — as well as Polynesian culture with reverence and specificity — was a balm in the uncertain November of 2016. It was a massive box office hit and was nominated for two Academy Awards — for animated film and for original song for a tune by Lin-Manuel Miranda.

“Moana” felt revolutionary within the Disney canon because our spunky protagonist is decidedly not a princess (she’ll be the first to tell you that). She felt radical, especially for older generations that grew up on passive heroes whose lives were dictated by weddings or resistance to them. That Moana was a girl of action, an explorer — strong, capable, brave, family-oriented and empathetic — made her a remarkable role model, and the character has lost none of her moxie in the sequel.

Although the impressive voice cast of Pacific Islanders, including original Moana voicer Auliʻi Cravalho and Dwayne Johnson, has returned (with a few additions), a new creative team has been assembled for the sequel, which was originally developed as a series and then reworked into a feature-length film. The good news is that the seams don’t show on the finished movie, which is as visually dazzling and culturally rich as the first and an apt continuation of Moana’s story. She is now a revered “wayfinder” in her community on a tiny Pacific island.

Moana has a desire to explore even farther into the ocean, to go beyond where she’s ever gone before — specifically to connect with other people. During a ritual ceremony, she receives a vision of an island, Motufetu, that once connected all the people of the ocean but that has since been cursed by a god named Nalo. Moana puts together a crew that includes her friend and historian Moni (Hualalai Chung), boatmaker Loto (Rose Matafeo) and farmer Kele (David Fane), in order to find Motofetu.

Along the way, they’ll have to scoop up the demigod Maui (Johnson), who has been waylaid inside a giant clam by Nalo, with only the company of a mysterious and nefarious bat-woman, Matangi (Awhimai Fraser). The entire team will have to collaborate — even with the feisty bunch of coconut warriors known as the Kakamora — in order to break Nalo’s curse, achieve their goal and assemble the community of Moana’s dream.

~ In ‘Moana 2,’ a groundbreaking Disney hero dreams bigger, venturing into new territory (LA Times)

Image: Moana/Disney/YouTube

[ed. My granddaughter loves Moana, and I do too. The animation is terrific (of course), and the dialog infused with lots of sly cross-generational humor. Plus, I grew up in Hawaii ("chee hoo"!) But, like everything, not everybody gets it. See also: Moana 2 Wiki here.]

De Minimis and Trade Policy

Teddy bear factory in Lianyungang, in eastern China’s Jiangsu province, on Nov. 22, 2024. 

If you’re tempted to buy kids’ toys at rock-bottom prices online this holiday season, consumer advocates want you to think twice — and maybe three times. That $8 gift might not meet U.S. safety standards that are meant to protect kids.

“A lot of folks think that just because something is for sale, it must be safe,” Teresa Murray of the Public Interest Research Group consumer watchdog tells NPR. “And that is incredibly wrong.” (...)

How are cut-rate items reaching U.S. homes?

“When you buy a toy or any other product online and it’s shipped directly to you from another country, it generally doesn’t get inspected before it gets to your mailbox,” Murray writes in PIRG’s Trouble in Toyland report for 2024.

Items are more likely to avoid scrutiny, Murray says, if they’re sent under what critics say is a loophole in U.S. law. It’s the same one that online retailers have used to send cheap clothes to the U.S. — and that smugglers use to ship fentanyl and counterfeit drugs to the U.S. For toy sellers, the strategy helps foreign businesses undercut U.S. retailers and dodge safety requirements.

The law is called de minimis. While that name implies something small, it’s a big deal. Since 2014, the number of shipments entering the United States under the de minimis exemption each year rose from 140 million to 1 billion in 2023, according to the White House. They now account for most of the cargo entering the U.S., according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and the flood is only increasing. The agency is processing some 4 million de minimis shipments every day. (...) [ed. emphasis added]

What is de minimis?

The de minimis exception started as a way to let travelers and businesses avoid tax and import duty requirements when shipping items of little value.

About 100 countries have de minimis thresholds; the amounts differ around the world. In the European Union, shipments worth less than 150 euros (about $160) can qualify. The U.S. level used to be $200, but in 2016 it rose to $800 — among the highest in the world — when then-President Barack Obama signed the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act.

Companies that focus on the de minimis exclusion use it as a duty-free pipeline to the U.S. — and they can pay less taxes than an American company selling a similar product.

The rule is part of the success of retailers like China’s Temu, which bases its business model on streamlining the connection between manufacturers and consumers.

Use — and abuse — of de minimis is growing

Unscrupulous exporters aggressively exploit de minimis. They wildly undervalue items, for instance, or list many items as a single shipment worth less than $800.

In one egregious case from last year, a disassembled helicopter was shipped from Venezuela to the seaport in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., under de minimis rules, described as “personal effects,” according to a recent Customs and Border Protection report.

Faced with screening a torrent of incoming packages and cargo labeled as de minimis, the CPSC says it works with the CBP to assess shipments’ potential risks, flagging those most likely not to meet U.S. requirements.

Bipartisan efforts push for change

Backers of de minimis say it keeps trade moving fluidly, at low costs to businesses and consumers. That includes John Pickel, senior director for international supply chain policy at the National Foreign Trade Council, who notes that de minimis shipments are subject to the same federal screening and enforcement requirements as higher-value shipments.

Pickel warns that putting new limits on de minimis would bring billions of dollars in harm, citing a recent working paper by researchers at Yale and UCLA that predicted doing away with de minimis would hurt low-income communities. But critics of de minimis say it harms those same communities by making it easier for unreliable and potentially dangerous products to reach them.

“De minimis is a loophole for cheap — and sometimes dangerous — Chinese goods,” says Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., in a statement to NPR. “Congress needs to protect U.S. consumers from harmful Chinese trade practices, for which de minimis is the most egregious of them all, and level the playing field for small businesses.”

by Bill Chappell, AK Pub Media/NPR |  Read more:

Image: Teddy bear factory; STR/AFP via Getty Images/AFP

[ed. See also: New Actions to Protect American Consumers, Workers, and Businesses by Cracking Down on De Minimis Shipments with Unsafe, Unfairly Traded Products (White House)

Why South Korea’s Leader, Desperate and Frustrated, Made a Fateful Decision

For Yoon Suk Yeol, the unpopular president of South Korea, things appeared to worsen with each passing day. Thousands of doctors had been on strike for almost a year to resist his health care reforms. The opposition in Parliament repeatedly pushed for investigations into his wife, as well as the impeachment of his cabinet members, accusing them of corruption and abuse of power. And the lawmakers blocked many of Mr. Yoon’s bills and political appointments.

On Tuesday night, Mr. Yoon took a desperate measure, his boldest political gamble, which he said was driven by frustration and crisis. In a surprise, nationally televised address, he declared martial law, the first such decree in the country in decades. The move banned all political activities, civil gatherings and “fake news” in what he called an attempt to save his country from “pro-North Korean” and “anti-state forces.”

But it ended almost as abruptly as it had started.

Thousands of citizens took to the streets, chanting “Impeach Yoon Suk Yeol!” Opposition lawmakers climbed the walls into the National Assembly as citizens pushed​ back police. Parliamentary aides used furniture and fire extinguishers to prevent armed paratroopers from entering the Assembly’s main hall. Inside, lawmakers who included members of Mr. Yoon’s own People Power Party voted unanimously to strike down his martial law. Six hours after declaring it, Mr. Yoon appeared on television again, this time to retract his decision.

It was the shortest-lived and most bizarre martial law in ​the history of South Korea, which had had its share of military coups and periods of martial law before it became a vibrant democracy after the military dictatorship that ended in the late 1980s.

In the end, driven by his own impulsiveness and surrounded by a small group of insiders, who seldom said no to a leader known for angry outbursts, Mr. Yoon shot his own foot,​ according to a former aide and political analysts.​ Now his political future ​is on the chopping block​, thrusting one of the United States’ most important allies in Asia into political upheaval and leaving many South Koreans in a state of shock.

On Wednesday, the opposition parties, which control the legislature, submitted an impeachment bill after Mr. Yoon did not respond to their demand that he resign because his martial law declaration had been unconstitutional. An editorial in the leading conservative daily Chosun Ilbo, which has often been friendly toward Mr. Yoon, now accused him of “insulting” South Korean democracy. South Koreans have not seen their leader declare martial law since the military dictator Chun Doo-hwan used it to seize power in 1979​ and later massacre pro-democracy students.

“The best option Yoon has now is to resign,” said Sung Deuk Hahm, a professor of political science at Kyonggi University, west of Seoul. “As tragic as it may seem, what happened overnight showed the resilience and durability of South Korean democracy.”

Mr. Yoon did not immediately respond to the opposition’s demand. On Wednesday, all senior aides to Mr. Yoon tendered their resignations to Mr. Yoon, leaving him more isolated than ever. Analysts were skeptical about ​Mr. Yoon’s political future. (...)

Mr. Yoon was surrounded by a handful of aides, including former military generals, who were not used to second-guessing their boss’s decision, said a former presidential aide to Mr. Yoon who agreed to discuss the president’s leadership style on the condition they not be identified. That small circle raised questions about how thoroughly Mr. Yoon prepared for martial law.

The former presidential aide said that as soon as he heard the declaration of martial law, he called contacts in Mr. Yoon’s office and other branches of the government. But none of them had advance knowledge of what was coming, he said. (...)

Before he was catapulted into the presidential race in 2022, Mr. Yoon was a political neophyte. He was a star prosecutor who wielded the law to help imprison two former presidents, and was used to a strictly top-down culture.

He won the election by a razor-thin margin, thanks largely to the public’s discontent with his predecessor, Moon Jae-in. But, from the start, he laid out big ambitions, seemingly staking his claim for a legacy as a change maker in a gridlocked political system. (...)

But little of his domestic agenda has worked out. His opponents won even greater control in the National Assembly in parliamentary elections this year. His government was accused of using prosecutors and criminal investigations to intimidate opposition leaders and crack down on news media he accused of spreading “fake news​.” ​His approval rating plummeted to around 20 percent, as he repeatedly vetoed the opposition’s demands for independent investigations into allegations against his wife, Kim Keon Hee. The opposition also imposed large changes on his budget proposals for next year.

Mr. Yoon was often called a “tribal leader” by political analysts for his penchant for appointing loyal friends among former prosecutors and fellow high school alumni to key military and government posts.​ 

by Choe Sang-Hun, NY Times |  Read more:

Image: Chang W. Lee/The New York Times
[ed. Hmm. Sounds familiar. Did the CIA secretly give him the green light to game out future US scenarios? Possible; I need to consult my Conspiracy Theories For Dummies encyclopedia set. See also: What South Korea’s short-lived martial law says about nation’s democracy and the autocratic tendencies of President Yoon (The Conversation).]

Sushi With Worms - No Extra Charge

Doesn't look too appealing to me. Are these... warm?

Ohhh... No.

Seattle-area sushi bars reopen after Keith Lee worm controversy (Seattle Times)

Images: FOB sushi bar

Learning Slide Guitar: Little Red Rooster

[ed. Pretty good introduction to slide guitar (singing not so much, haha). See also: various tips and embellishments like the "howling dog" technique at 14:35. Pretty cool. Open G tuning is used extensively throughout rock with Keith Richards being perhaps it's most notable practitioner. But it's fundamental to Hawaiian music too (ie. Taro Patch tuning]. See this excellent overview of Ki Ho'alu/slack key styles by Jeff Peterson.]

Rarest of Rare

Wellington, New Zealand — It is the world’s rarest whale, with only seven of its kind ever spotted. Almost nothing is known about the enigmatic species. But on Monday a small group of scientists and cultural experts in New Zealand clustered around a near-perfectly preserved spade-toothed whale hoping to decode decades of mystery.

“I can’t tell you how extraordinary it is,” said a joyful Anton van Helden, senior marine science adviser for New Zealand’s conservation agency, who gave the spade-toothed whale its name to distinguish it from other beaked species. “For me personally, it’s unbelievable.”

Van Helden has studied beaked whales for 35 years, but Monday was the first time he has participated in a dissection of the spade-toothed variety. In fact, the careful study of the creature -- which washed up dead on a New Zealand beach in July — is the first ever to take place.

None has ever been seen alive at sea.

The list of what scientists don’t know about spade-toothed whales is longer than what they do know. They don’t know where in the ocean the whales live, why they’ve never been spotted in the wild, or what their brains look like. All beaked whales have different stomach systems and researchers don’t know how the spade-toothed kind processes its food. They don’t know how this one died.

Over the next week, researchers studying the 5-meter (16-foot) -long male at an agricultural research center near the city of Dunedin hope to find out.

“There may be parasites completely new to science that just live in this whale,” said van Helden, who thrilled at the chance of learning how the species produces sound and what it eats. “Who knows what we’ll discover?”

Only six other spade-toothed whales have ever been found, but all those discovered intact were buried before DNA testing could verify their identification.

New Zealand is a whale-stranding hotspot, with more than 5,000 episodes recorded since 1840, according to the Department of Conservation. The first spade-toothed whale bones were found in 1872 on New Zealand’s Pitt Island. Another discovery was made at an offshore island in the 1950s, and the bones of a third were found on Chile’s Robinson Crusoe Island in 1986.

DNA sequencing in 2002 proved that all three specimens were of the same species — and that it was distinct from other beaked whales. But researchers studying the mammal couldn’t confirm whether the species was extinct until 2010, when two whole spade-toothed whales, both dead, washed up on a New Zealand beach. But none has been studied before.

On Monday, the seventh of its kind, surrounded by white-aproned scientists who were measuring and photographing, appeared relatively unblemished, giving no clue about its death. Researchers pointed out marks from cookiecutter sharks — normal, they said, and not the cause. (...)

It’s thought that spade-toothed whales live in the vast Southern Pacific Ocean, home to some of the world’s deepest ocean trenches. Beaked whales are the ocean’s deepest divers for food, and the spade-toothed may rarely surface, adding to its mystery.

by Charlotte Graham-McLay, AP | Read more:
Image: AP Photo/Derek Morrison

Subscription Traps and Click-to-Cancel

The Looming GOP Battle Over Whether You Have to Go to Hell and Back to Cancel Amazon Prime

For years, customers trying to cancel their Amazon Prime subscriptions have complained about having to navigate a maze of confusing screens so they can ditch their monthly subscription fee. At Planet Fitness, one of the biggest gym chains in the country, people who want to quit pumping iron complain about the same thing.

From ditching a premium account to canceling your gym membership, critics of the business practices that make it hard to leave call them “subscription traps.” Customers hate them — so much so that they file 70 complaints a day at the Federal Trade Commission.

In response, the FTC unveiled the click-to-cancel rule last month that is designed to make it much harder for businesses to fleece customers. Ending a subscription should be just as easy as signing up for it in the first place, FTC Chair Lina Khan said.

Under the rule set to go into effect soon, companies have to be upfront about any fees that will pop up after a free trial period. And canceling a subscription or service must take as many steps as it took to sign up; consumers also cannot be forced to call a customer service line or send a letter to cancel a service they started online.

With Khan’s time at the FTC running out, the new leadership that Donald Trump installs at the agency could go either way on questions like the click-to-cancel rule.

That’s because Khan, a liberal appointed by a liberal president, has won some unlikely fans among conservatives: the “Khanservatives” who support cracking down on anti-competitive practices. On the other side of the debate are a more traditional GOP constituency: businesses and investors betting big on the loosening of regulation.

The new FTC brass could try to scale down the rule, kill it, or keep it. Or Congress could legislate the rule away.

The rule, passed last month, isn’t enforceable until 180 days after it’s posted in the Federal Register — which may get killed before it even takes effect.

Leading Candidates

Trump has yet to announce his pick to succeed Khan as chair.

Two candidates in the mix could take an aggressive stance in favor of enforcing antitrust laws, according to reporting earlier this week in the Financial Times. Either Vice President-elect JD Vance’s adviser Gail Slater or former Department of Justice antitrust division attorney Mark Meador could get the nod, the newspaper said.

Whether Slater, Meador, or another candidate gets the nod, the confirmation process could take months. In the meantime, Trump could appoint one of the two GOP commissioners as acting chair.

There are signs, however, that would bode ill for the Khanservatives: The two Republican commissioners, Andrew Ferguson and Melissa Holyoak, both voted against the click-to-cancel rule.

“Everybody ought to just say, ‘Thank goodness.’ It’s a scam that has been baked into some of our companies,” said David Vladeck, a law professor and the director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection under President Barack Obama. “I’m just flummoxed that two of the commissioners think that this is not a good idea.” (...)

Even before click-to-cancel was approved, Khan’s agency used existing rules to go after companies like Amazon. The FTC sued the tech giant in 2023 for making it hard to cancel Prime. The company denies tricking people into signing up for Prime or making it hard to cancel.

Outside the commission itself, the new rule faces other potential stumbling blocks. Three corporate trade groups representing the advertising, home security, and cable and TV industries have sued to stop the rule from taking effect. Congress could also overturn the rule.

“Clearly, there are a lot of obstacles to this,” Murray said. “But we certainly hope for the sake of consumers and the sake of businesses that are doing it the right way, that companies will comply with this whether it is required or not.”

Risking Backlash

An attempt to reverse the click-to-cancel rule could please some of Trump’s corporate backers but would also run the risk of a popular backlash. The rule broke through to the public consciousness in a way few FTC decisions do — even earning a nod from Stephen Colbert.

Democratic FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter said she had heard repeatedly from ordinary people outside the world of Washington politics praising the adoption of the rule. Khan noted that the rule was driven by public complaints.

“We’ve heard about these complaints across all sorts of contexts, from gym memberships to delivery services,” Khan said Thursday. “These tactics are causing Americans real harm, with people paying hundreds or even thousands of dollars for services they no longer want.”

Click-to-cancel will not be the only big decision for the next FTC chair. The agency is also pursuing lawsuits against Amazon and Facebook’s parent company, Meta, with potentially sweeping implications.

And for more than a year, the FTC has been considering a proposed rule to ban the hidden “junk fees” that raise the cost of everything from apartment rentals to concert tickets. Vladeck, the law professor, said he doubts that Khan can pass that rule before she leaves office.

“The clock is ticking pretty loudly right now,” he said. “I think they’re probably not going to get it done.”

by Matt Sledge, The Intercept |  Read more:

Image: Francis Chung/POLITICO via AP Images
[ed. It's beyond belief that a no-brainer like this should become politicized. Ms Khan's been an exceptional consumer advocate in her short tenure at the FTC, and was just getting started. Too bad she'll be gone soon (but not forgotten). See also: Amazon is a Ripoff; and, FTC Sues Amazon for Illegally Maintaining Monopoly Power.]

Laufey

The NBA’s Three-Point Revolution Has Gotten Extreme

How many is too many?

Not two weeks into the NBA season, Kevin Durant sat at his locker and grappled with the latest repercussions of the league’s three-point boom. Stephen Curry and James Harden ushered in basketball’s perimeter revolution roughly a decade ago, but a disorienting new era has swept through the league.

The defending champion Boston Celtics launched 61 attempts from behind the arc on opening night, and Celtics star Jayson Tatum put up 18 by himself against the Indiana Pacers on Oct. 30. When Durant was a rookie in 2007-08, his Seattle SuperSonics shot just 11.5 three-pointers per game; Charlotte Hornets guard LaMelo Ball is averaging more than that by himself this season. Entering Monday’s games, NBA teams were taking 37.4 three-pointers per game, which was on pace to set a record and more than double the league’s average in 2014-15.

Players continue pushing the boundaries, hoisting off-the-dribble threes, step-back threes, one-legged threes, transition threes, early-shot-clock threes and deep threes from the center-court logo. Teams are commonly fielding lineups with five players who are encouraged to shoot from the outside, including 7-foot centers. Within this whirlwind, it can feel like anything goes.

“That’s a fine line a lot of teams are having this season,” Durant said. “Do I come down on the break after a good [defensive] stop and pull a three over the top of two people? That’s a question you’ve got to ask yourself. That is considered a good shot nowadays. But, really, is it? If you miss that ball, it’s a fast break on the other end.”

Despite Durant’s reservations, many teams have decided to chuck threes and ask questions later in an attempt to keep up with the Joneses. The Celtics led the league in three-point attempts and offensive efficiency en route to the 2024 title, and the Western Conference champion Dallas Mavericks ranked second in three-point attempts per game in 2023-24.

After getting his first taste of celebratory champagne, Celtics Coach Joe Mazzulla doubled down on his obsession with three-point generation. Entering Tuesday night’s game against the undefeated Cleveland Cavaliers, Boston is the only team this season — and just the third in league history — to attempt more three-pointers than two-pointers. While Harden’s Houston Rockets leaned more on threes than twos in 2018-19 and 2019-20, the Celtics have distorted the outside-inside balance more than any team in history by taking 51.1 three-pointers and 39.7 two-pointers per game.

With its current shot profile, Boston is on track to become the first team to average 50 three-point attempts, more than double its output in the 2014-15 season. By comparison, Harden’s Rockets topped out at 45.4 three-point attempts in 2018-19, and Curry’s Golden State Warriors peaked with 43.2 in 2022-23.

“I love three-pointers,” Mazzulla said shortly after taking over the Celtics in 2022. “I like math. I like open threes. I like space. I think it’s a huge strength of our team.” (...)

“Whenever a team wins a championship, everyone analyzes how they did it,” Knicks guard Jalen Brunson said last month. “A lot of people saw how successful [the Celtics] were with their offense, the five-out. It may not be a carbon copy, but everyone wants to adjust to the new ways of basketball.” (...)

“The game continues to change,” Celtics center Al Horford said. “Even from last year, I think it’s different. I feel like people are shooting more threes now and playing more of a style like we play. It’s more and more teams. That’s an adjustment.”

NBA Commissioner Adam Silver has yet to take proactive steps to slow this sea change — such as pushing back the three-point arc or eliminating the bend that allows shorter three-pointers from the corners — but fans could have a say if the three-point boom continues unchecked. Perhaps modern basketball’s “bad shot” will become the one that’s no longer thrilling because everyone already has seen it too many times to count.

“The league needs to change the rules,” Fox Sports commentator Nick Wright said. “The smart way to play is probably what the Celtics did on opening night: shoot 60 [three-pointers]. That’s the best strategy, but it’s also terrible television.”

by Ben Golliver and Artur Galocha, Washington Post | Read more:
Image: uncredited

A Note on "Government Efficiency"

There is a major focus these days on the topic of government efficiency, spurred by the creation of what is being called a “Department of Government Efficiency.” I have had the good fortune of being involved in simplification of government, and reduction of paperwork and regulatory burdens, in various capacities, and here are six quick and general notations.

1. The Administrative Procedure Act is central to the relevant project. It needs to be mastered. It offers opportunities and obstacles. No one (not even the president) can clap and eliminate regulations. It’s important to know the differences among IFRs, TFRs, NPRMs, FRs, and RFIs. (The best of the bunch, for making rules or eliminating rules: FRs. They are final rules.)
2. The Paperwork Reduction Act needs to be mastered. There is far too much out there in the way of administrative barriers and burdens. The PRA is the route for eliminating them. There’s a process there.
3. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs is, for many purposes, the key actor here. (I headed the office from 2009-2012.) A reduce-the-regulations effort probably has to go through that Office. Its civil servants have a ton of expertise. They could generate a bunch of ideas in a short time.
4. It is important to distinguish between the flow of new burdens and regulations and the stock of old ones. They need different processes. The flow is a bit easier to handle than the stock.
5. The law, as enacted by Congress, leaves the executive branch with a lot of flexibility, but also imposes a lot of constraints. Some of the stock is mandatory. Some of the flow is mandatory. It is essential to get clarity on the details there.
6. The courts! It’s not right to say that recent Supreme Court decisions give the executive branch a blank check here. In some ways, they impose new obstacles. Any new administration needs a full understanding of Loper Bright, the major questions doctrine, Seila Law, and much more (jargon, I know, I know).

by Cass Sunstein, Substack |  Read more:

[ed. See also: Regulating Sausages (MR): "In the comments on Sunstein on DOGE many people argued that regulations were mostly about safety."

***

[ed. I would agree that's a large part of it. Something bad happens and instead of making institutional and/or supervisory changes that would keep the bad thing from happening again ("you're reassigned; don't ever let that happen again!), we get regulations (ie. legal statements of intent and ass-covering). But that's just one part of what could be called burdensome regulatory oversight. Here are a few other thoughts, just off the top of my head:

• Evolution: We learn more over time (scientifically, socially, legally, etc.) so adjustments are needed to achieve original and sometimes enhanced versions of a subject objective. Also, new developments arise (Internet, cybercrime, AI, financial instruments, 5G networks, etc. etc.) requiring new rules where previously none existed.

• Politics: Covers a lot of territory. Payback for campaign donations; support for home-state industries; alignment with voting constituency and issues; etc. etc. Lots of granularity in how this category is applied (to the benefit of politicians/political causes).

• Lobbying: Corporations (and others) lobby for regulations all the time to secure niche advantages over competitors; provide legal cover; maintain economic and industry dominance, etc. etc. That's the whole raison d'etre lobbyists exist.
  

• Social Programs: Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, EBT, FEMA, Immigration, Defense. All massive items widely supported by the majority of the population (and which, along with interest payments on the national debt, constitute the bulk of annual federal spending). Cut with caution.

• Other: Wide range of regulations for anything and everything else: highway standards; consumer protection; NGO contracts; scientific advances; copyright; trade benefits; and so on. Not a significant proportion of the national budget but still entangled both widely and deeply with other programs/priorities.

So, after a few spectacular shots (defund the DOE! NPR!) with subsequent legal challenges, I don't personally see much getting accomplished, other than just making government more inefficient and dysfunctional than it already is. There are too many embeded interests, with constituencies for everything. As noted in this recent NYT column: "an inclination to destroy something is not evidence of an ability to manage it, or reform it, or improve it — quite the contrary.”  See also: Governmental Efficiency: What Can It Possibly Mean? (GSP). Plus, there's this.