ReportWire

Tag: Corporations

  • Review: ‘The Outer Worlds 2’ is a video game about unchecked corporate power

    [ad_1]

    In The Outer Worlds 2, everything goes back to antitrust. Like the first game in the series, this first-person shooter is set in the far future in an alternate timeline in which William McKinley was not assassinated. As a result, Theodore Roosevelt was never president and the trustbusting of America’s early 20th century never happened. The result, in the game’s alternate timeline, is a future defined by sprawling mega corporations of almost comical scope and power.

    The game plays its corporate-controlled scenario for winks and laughs, extrapolating and exaggerating the power of unregulated corporations as they reach into space via interstellar colonies. The first game featured a war between a home goods company called Auntie Cleo’s and a colonial supply company called Spacer’s Choice. In the post-war sequel, they’ve merged into an even more powerful entity, Auntie’s Choice.

    The game’s satire of corporate rule is often funny. But it’s so over the top that it undermines its point: In the game world’s dystopia, corporate control is so complete and inescapable that it functions like authoritarian government power. Turns out that’s what everyone dislikes.

    [ad_2]

    Peter Suderman

    Source link

  • Lovable’s CEO says the company is targeting enterprise customers as its ARR doubles to $200 million in just four months | Fortune

    [ad_1]

    Swedish “vibe-coding” startup Lovable has reached $200 million in annual recurring revenue (ARR), doubling its total from just four months earlier, co-founder and CEO Anton Osika told attendees at the Slush 2025 technology conference in Helsinki.

    Lovable determines ARR by taking the prior month’s revenue, multiplying it by 12, and annualizing the result, according to Osika.

    The Swedish company, founded in 2023, has experienced rapid growth since launching its AI-powered app-building product in late 2024. Now, Osika is eyeing a larger enterprise customer base.

    “If you look at people who have accounts from enterprises, it’s like half [of customers],” he told Fortune. “Most of it is coming from an individual who starts using Lovable and then brings it into the company. And then, in some cases, it’s growing into a larger contract across the entire company and turning into multi-million-dollar deals.”

    Osika describes Lovable’s mission as democratizing software engineering by leaning into “vibe-coding,” where a user describes in plain language the app they want to build or the function of a piece of software they want to create, and the AI takes care of actually writing the code to produce that result.

    Lovable’s main product is an AI-powered development platform that turns natural-language prompts into full-stack web applications and websites, generating real front-end, back-end, and database code that users can run and edit. The platform runs on a subscription model, where users can opt to pay for more advanced features. The company targets both non-technical users and developers, and offers a chat-based interface to help users build and deploy apps.

    “We’re living through one of those rare moments in time that people are going to talk about for decades, and I think we’re transforming how humanity creates software,” Osika said. “Everyone becomes a developer in the future.”

    Many of its users are casual creators, for example, those who use Lovable to quickly build simple tools or prototypes without learning to code. While individual users can generate revenue, the enterprise market is becoming increasingly lucrative as larger companies look to integrate AI tools into workflows. However, it’s also increasingly competitive. Lovable will be going up against major players like Microsoft and Google, as well as fast-growing startups like Anthropic, which is already a favorite among coders.

    “We’re building for the non-technical and the 99%,” Osika said of the competition. “We’re obsessed with being simple, and so far, momentum-wise, that’s working out great for us.”

    Lovable’s AI interface

    The company is also expanding its product features, in part to become more appealing to enterprises that want to use AI for things like creating their own products or making tools to manage day-to-day operations. Osika says the company is building an AI interface that allows customers to connect, access, and customize various tools.

    “What we foresee is that our thesis—which is to simplify all the steps of product development, the entire lifecycle, from building it, hosting it, maintaining it, testing it, and doing experimentation—is going to be realized through one simple AI interface, and that’s what we’re building,” he said.

    The startup, which is led by the 35-year-old Osika and co-founderFabian Hedin, is also bringing in senior leadership to help steer this expansion. Over the last few months, the company has hired Maryanne Caughy, former chief people officer at Notion and Gusto, to head up people, Dropbox’s former head of growth and data, Eelena Verna, to lead growth, and Meta alum Charles Guillemet to lead recruitment.

    “We just brought in these wonderful senior people who are moving to Stockholm with their families—even from the Bay Area—to pair with this very, very high-energy, high-slope talent that we have in the company,” he said. “As we build out, we’re also opening hubs in San Francisco and Boston to serve our customers there.”

    A European base

    Speaking onstage, Osika also attributed Lovable’s rapid growth to the company’s decision to stay in Europe, despite persistent advicefrom others in the industry that the company needed a San Francisco base.

    “It was tempting, but I really resisted that,” he said. “I can sit here now and say, ‘You can build a global AI company from this country.’ There is more available talent if you have a strong mission and a team that’s working with urgency.”

    Lovable has secured more than $225 million in venture capital since its founding. Its most recent raise—a $200 million Series A led by Accel and joined by more than 20 investors—valued the company at $1.8 billion.

    [ad_2]

    Beatrice Nolan

    Source link

  • ‘I would’ve bought him one’: California woman asks Taco Bell worker if the new Agua Refresca are any good in drive-thru. His response is shocking

    [ad_1]

    Earlier this summer, a woman went to Taco Bell for a sweet treat. There are few better ways to cool the mouth and tingle the taste buds than an ice-cold, fruity drink on a hot summer day, after all.

    She decided to order one of Taco Bell’s newer line of drinks called Agua Refrescas. They come in three different flavors—strawberry passionfruit, dragonfruit strawberry, and mango peach—and Evelyn Raines (@evrain23) wasn’t sure which she wanted. So she asked the Taco Bell worker taking her order which was his favorite.

    Raines couldn’t believe his response.

    “He goes, ‘Oh well, they make us pay for it, so I haven’t tried it yet,”” she recalls in a TikTok. “I said, ‘What?’”

    She went with the strawberry passionfruit Agua Refresca. The worker apologized again when she picked it up at the window. Raines says she replied, “That’s whack, I wouldn’t buy it either.”

    Do restaurant employees have to pay for food?

    Many people just assume that working in a restaurant means you get to chow down for free. That often isn’t true, however.

    There are some restaurants that provide a meal, sometimes called family meal. But no matter what watching The Bear may make you think, that’s the exception, not the rule.

    Most restaurants do give an employee discount. Often you can only use it to purchase a limited amount of food, such as one meal per shift. The discount varies, but 50% off is rather common in the industry.

    These policies vary from restaurant to restaurant. It can also vary between franchises like Taco Bell.

    As multiple commenters confirmed in the Taco Bell subreddit a few years ago, workers at one Taco Bell may get a complimentary meal while those at another don’t, even in the same city. It depends on the location and the owner.

    One person commented on Raines’ TikTok, writing, “I work at Taco Bell and it’s true they make us pay for it. And they don’t even allow us to get it on our $10 employee meal.”

    That said, even if it isn’t restaurant policy to feed you, there often are ways to get a free meal or sample something without resorting to theft. Orders get messed up all the time. Being friendly with the kitchen staff in these situations can be a literal meal ticket.

    You can also ask a manager if you can try something. It’ll depend on the manager and the item, of course. You’re not likely to get to try the wagyu ribeye, for example, but you might just get a taste of Taco Bell’s new Agua Refresca.

    Is the Agua Refresca worth the price?

    As she shares her disbelief that the Taco Bell she went to doesn’t give employees free food and drinks, Raines takes a sip of her strawberry passionfruit Agua Refresca. At $4.30, she and several commenters think it’s a bit pricey.

    As one wrote, “For a little over $4 it was giving Minute Maid for me! Not worth it.”

    The sheer quantity of sugar, which Raines says is 41 grams, had her planning to water it down over the course of multiple drinks. That may sound like a lot, but it’s roughly the equivalent of a 12 ounce Coca Cola.

    Sugar and price aside, Raines was overall pleased with Taco Bell’s strawberry passionfruit Agua Refresca.

    “It’s good. It tastes like a really sugary Gatorade,” she says.

    She didn’t respond to a direct message sent via TikTok.

    @evrain23

    Why are drinks so expensive EVERYWHERE now? And poor Taco Bell employee can’t even try itttt!?

    ♬ original sound – Evelyn Rain

    Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

    Image of Claire Goforth

    Claire Goforth

    Claire Goforth is a contributing writer to The Mary Sue. Her work has appeared in the Guardian, Al Jazeera America, the Miami New Times, Folio Weekly, the Juvenile Justice Information Exchange, the Florida Times-Union, the Daily Dot, and Grace Ormonde Wedding Style. Find her online at bsky.app/profile/clairegoforth.bsky.social and x.com/claire_goforth.

    [ad_2]

    Claire Goforth

    Source link

  • Uncle Sam is investing now. What could possibly go wrong?

    [ad_1]

    When President Donald Trump announced in August that the federal government took an equity stake in Intel, he bragged that taxpayers had “paid zero” for part of a company now “worth $11 billion.” In reality, taxpayers paid plenty: $8.9 billion in subsidies with potentially more to come. The government simply dressed up the giveaway as an investment, which some leaders see as only the beginning.

    If you’re not deafened by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick’s cheers, you’ll hear economists from the right and the left expressing alarm. Politicians picking winners, subsidizing favored firms, and now grabbing government ownership stakes create the market distortions that conservatives once decried.

    Also, acting as both regulator and shareholder generates conflicts of interest on an epic scale. Will Washington regulate Intel as forcefully as the company’s competitors or tilt the field? The question answers itself.

    As troubling as the deal is, some policymakers now say it should be only a “down payment” on a U.S. sovereign wealth fund (SWF). National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett recently told CNBC that “many, many countries” have SWFs and suggested that the Intel stake moves America in that direction.

    This idea is terrible.

    More than 90 countries operate SWFs, but look closer. These funds exist in one of two environments: undemocratic regimes like China and the United Arab Emirates (UAE); or in resource-rich countries like Norway and Kuwait whose governments generate consistent budget surpluses, often from oil and gas revenues that they then invest.

    As my Mercatus Center colleague Jack Salmon explains in a detailed Substack post, Norway has the world’s largest fund. Over the past 15 years, it’s also run average surpluses equal to nearly 10 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP). Singapore, often cited for its model SWF, runs an average fiscal surplus of 3.6 percent. The petroleum-rich UAE posts surpluses of about 3 percent.

    The United States has no surplus, running average deficits of 7 percent of GDP over the same period. Gross U.S. debt is roughly $37 trillion, with Congress flirting with adding another $116 trillion over the next 30 years if it doesn’t reform entitlement programs.

    Washington doesn’t have spare revenue; it borrows to pay bills, such as growing interest on debt we already owe. To propose borrowing even more to play the role of investment manager is fiscal madness.

    SWF advocates argue that the government can exploit a supposed “free money” arbitrage by borrowing at the risk-free rate (via Treasury securities) and then investing at the higher market rate. That premise collapses under scrutiny.

    First, the interest rates tied to this process aren’t permanently low; they rise when debt looks unsustainable, as America’s debt surely does. Second, even if borrowing costs appear lower than investment returns, private investors already pursue these opportunities. The U.S. capital market is not short of money. There’s no gain for society when the government simply displaces private investors and leaves taxpayers to shoulder both risk and additional debt.

    SWFs are political institutions and unlike private investors, governments are never disciplined by profit and loss. As then–presidential candidate Barack Obama once warned in 2008, they can be “motivated by more than just market considerations.” Their portfolios, as Salmon documents, have become playgrounds for lobbying, regulatory capture, and ideological crusades.

    In Australia, successive governments have redirected the “Future Fund” toward politically convenient projects. In New Zealand, the “Superannuation Fund” has been divesting from politically disfavored investments. South Korea’s fund has been repeatedly reshaped by bureaucratic infighting.

    Strictly speaking, these three are not classic sovereign wealth funds, but that distinction is irrelevant here. Once governments pool and invest large sums outside normal budget processes, the money becomes politicized. The evidence is overwhelming that funds become crony-capitalist tools vulnerable to shifting political winds and mission creep. They don’t insulate politics from markets; they inject politics into every investment decision.

    An American SWF would entrench rent seeking on a scale unseen since New Deal corporatist experiments. Picture trillions invested directly into equities and bonds, with Washington deciding which industries deserve support. Imagine policy decisions about energy, tech, labor standards, and even foreign relations warped by the government’s financial stake.

    Once Uncle Sam starts acquiring slices of corporate pies, the temptation to steer regulation to protect his portfolio will be overwhelming. And to those on the right who think Republicans have the proper values to pull this off, remember that you won’t always be in power.

    We don’t need another subsidy machine disguised as investment. We have something better: the U.S. economy itself. The best way to strengthen it is not through bureaucrats buying equities but by enacting structural reforms to strengthen every sector for every worker and consumer. That means lowering regulatory barriers, restraining spending, and fixing entitlements.

    COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS.COM

    [ad_2]

    Veronique de Rugy

    Source link

  • ‘Believe me, you’re better off’: Woman starts going to the gym during lunch. Then her position gets outsourced

    [ad_1]

    A woman was outsourced from her company under suspicious circumstances. The reason she may think this is why? She left on her lunch break to go to the gym.

    In a video with over 4,500 views, Whitney Lawrence (whit.moves) explained how her position in human resources had an “unspoken” rule for its employees: don’t leave the office, or you may get canned. 

    Worker uses lunch break to visit gym

    Lawrence said one of the strangest experiences leading up to her position being outsourced involved her decision to start leaving the office for lunch. For the year and a half or two years she had worked there, she never stepped out.

    “I had always worked through my lunch, never left,” she said. Over time, though, the work environment began to feel increasingly hostile. She sensed that her termination might be coming, so she decided to take a small step for herself and leave to go to the gym during her lunch break, figuring she might get fired anyway.

    “One of the craziest things that happened before my position got outsourced was about a month ago,” Lawrence said. “I decided I’m going to start taking my lunch and leaving [to] go to the gym. Everybody else seems to leave on their lunch. Why can’t I?”

    The ‘unspoken rule’

    She noted that there seemed to be an unspoken rule specifically targeting HR employees. “I have always felt like there was this unspoken rule of like, ‘HR isn’t allowed to leave,’ so I just never did,” she added. She also felt the weight of her boss’s disapproval. “I felt like my boss frowned upon it.”

    When she was eventually outsourced, she wasn’t necessarily surprised. However, the interaction she had with the company owner’s wife left her stunned. 

    “She asked me, ‘Oh where are you going?’ Mind you, I don’t even know what this lady does for the company, but she’s there everyday looking over everyone’s shoulder,” she said. “I said, ‘Oh I’m going to the gym.’ She’s like, ‘Oh you’re going to the gym on your lunch?’ I said, ‘Yeah.’ 

    The woman proceeded to snarkily reply, “‘OK well, I hope you’re not planning on eating when you come back since you’re spending your lunch [there].’”

    Sometime after that interaction, Lawrence got outsourced and let go. 

    Commenters dig into the company

    Many TikTok users thought that the interaction was unnecessarily hostile, especially given the fact that Lawrence could technically do whatever she needed with her lunch hour. 

    One wrote, “The unspoken rules and vibes shifts that take place in an office needs to be studied.” 

    Another added, “I foam at the mouth, thinking of these situations, hoping they would happen to me. That lady would have learned that day, why she should myob.”

    Another person referenced the company that Lawrence supposedly worked for, but didn’t mention what that company is. They said, “I used to work at the same company you did. They put up such a front that it was a big family. Biggest sack of lies.”

    @whit.moves This interaction is engraved in my brain ? #lunchbreak #work #fyp #wtf ♬ original sound – whit

    The Mary Sue has reached out to Lawrence via email and Lawrence’s former workplace for comment.

    Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

    Image of Rachel Joy Thomas

    [ad_2]

    Rachel Joy Thomas

    Source link

  • The Key to Building Effective Corporate-Startup Partnerships | Entrepreneur

    [ad_1]

    Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

    Too many corporate-startup partnerships fall apart despite everyone starting out with good intentions. Big companies say they want to work with startups. Startups jump at the opportunity to scale their ideas. But a year later, both sides often walk away disappointed and empty-handed.

    It doesn’t have to be this way. When done right, these partnerships can unlock enormous value that pays off many times over for both sides. But the key word here is partnership. Too often, corporations treat these relationships as transactions, not collaborations. And startups, for their part, don’t always know how to navigate the maze of corporate expectations and politics.

    That may help explain why a 2024 survey of over 800 health-tech decision-makers found that just 15% of corporate-startup collaborations succeed — barely up from 13% five years earlier.

    Here’s what I’ve learned about making corporate partnerships actually work.

    Related: Startups & Corporates: A Symbiotic Relationship

    Don’t go silent after the kickoff

    One of the biggest mistakes I see corporations make is treating the startup business partnership like a box to check. They kick off the project, then walk away and expect the startup to deliver magic. I can tell you: That almost never works.

    Startups thrive on feedback, iteration and course correction. If you leave them alone for months, you risk missing key opportunities to adjust — or worse, ending up with something that doesn’t fit your needs.

    As a startup, don’t be shy about pushing for regular check-ins. Insist on ongoing conversations, even if it feels like you’re nagging. I’ve worked with startups that were afraid to “bother” their corporate sponsor, only to find out months later that they’d gone down the wrong path.

    If you’re not talking, you’re headed for trouble.

    Watch for the “not invented here” syndrome

    Here’s a common attitude trap: Big companies love to say they’re open to outside innovation, but when it comes down to it, I’ve seen many struggle to embrace something they didn’t invent themselves.

    When corporate teams subconsciously (or even consciously) resist integrating the startup’s work because it feels foreign, or simply because of an ego reflex, the “not invented here” mindset is getting in the way of innovation.

    Startups need to pay attention to this dynamic early. Ask yourself: Is your partner genuinely committed to bringing your innovation inside? Do you see them involving their internal teams? Are they championing your work internally?

    If not, that’s a red flag. A partnership where the big company never really intended to adopt your solution is just window dressing and will probably end up being a waste of your time.

    Related: When It Comes to Corporate Partnerships, Remember These 5 Relationship Tricks

    Don’t let your corporation partnership get buried in bureaucracy

    Let’s be honest: Corporations can be slow and bureaucratic. Startups … aren’t.

    I’ve seen great startups get bogged down in legal reviews, compliance checklists and approval processes, draining resources and killing momentum. If you bring all the corporate bureaucracy to a startup, they will fail. Trying to find that balance is really important.

    As a startup, you need to be honest about what your team can handle. If there are just ten of you and the corporate partner is bogging you down in demands like you’re a big vendor with endless resources, speak up. Don’t be afraid to push back and set clear limits. Whether it’s about timelines, resources or anything else, be clear on what you can deliver.

    On the corporate side, the best partnerships happen when the company makes an effort to adapt. Simplify processes and give the startup breathing room to operate. Again, startups beware: If you’re not seeing that kind of flexibility, think carefully about how much you’re willing to tolerate.

    This is even more important as corporate interest in startups grows. In 2023, corporate-backed deals already accounted for 19% of global venture funding, and the numbers are growing. This shows just how much big companies rely on these partnerships to drive innovation and how much is at stake if they fail.

    Redefine what success looks like

    One of the most important mindset shifts for both sides is understanding that success isn’t always about launching a blockbuster product right away.

    In some of the best startup partnerships I’ve been a part of, the immediate result wasn’t a shiny new thing on the market. What we learned from a project often helped us to solve a problem elsewhere. So — it was successful.

    It was learning. It was building capabilities. It was solving problems elsewhere, sometimes in surprising and unforeseen ways, by using what we discovered together.

    I like to say: Don’t measure the partnership just by the end product. Measure it by the progress it enables. By the degree of innovation it brings to your company. That is the kind of mindset that keeps both parties motivated.

    Creating this win-win relationship is important. You can apply that to intellectual property, licensing and credit, for example. Too many partnerships fail because one side tries to squeeze too much value out of the other. The result is that in the end, nobody wins.

    Startups should make sure their corporate partner values the knowledge and connections that come out of the collaboration, beyond the deliverable itself. These expectations need to be managed from the very beginning in open conversations.

    Related: Making Startup-Corporate Partnerships Succeed: The How-To

    What you should take away

    If you’re a startup thinking about partnering with a big company, here’s my best advice:

    • Speak up! Insist on regular meetings as part of the process from day one.

    • Be honest about your capacity and set realistic expectations.

    • Remember: Success is much more than a glossy product launch.

    These partnerships can be transformational. They can open doors you’d never reach on your own — but only if you go in with the right mindset and a true partner.

    If you treat it like an actual collaboration, not just a deal, you’ll unlock opportunities others might miss.

    Too many corporate-startup partnerships fall apart despite everyone starting out with good intentions. Big companies say they want to work with startups. Startups jump at the opportunity to scale their ideas. But a year later, both sides often walk away disappointed and empty-handed.

    It doesn’t have to be this way. When done right, these partnerships can unlock enormous value that pays off many times over for both sides. But the key word here is partnership. Too often, corporations treat these relationships as transactions, not collaborations. And startups, for their part, don’t always know how to navigate the maze of corporate expectations and politics.

    That may help explain why a 2024 survey of over 800 health-tech decision-makers found that just 15% of corporate-startup collaborations succeed — barely up from 13% five years earlier.

    The rest of this article is locked.

    Join Entrepreneur+ today for access.

    [ad_2]

    Anantha Desikan

    Source link

  • Lawrence city councilors back embattled Arthur T. Demoulas

    [ad_1]

    LAWRENCE — Local city councilors are the latest Merrimack Valley elected officials to back Market Basket’s suspended CEO, Arthur T. Demoulas.

    “We have seen firsthand the lasting impact of Arthur T.’s values-based leadership, and we respectfully urge the board to take every action possible to welcome him back into a guiding role within the company,” states the letter, dated Sunday, to the Market Basket board of directors.


    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAmxE’D D:8?65 3J {2HC6?46 r:EJ r@F?4:=@CD vC68@CJ s6= #@D2C:@[ p?2 {6GJ 2?5 r6=:?2 #6J6D]k^Am

    kAm%96 =6EE6C DE2E6D E92E E9@FD2?5D @7 {2HC6?46 C6D:56?ED C6=J ?@E @?=J @? E96 DE@C6’D 277@C523=6 8C@46C:6D 3FE :ED 4F=EFC6 @7 5:8?:EJ[ 72:C?6DD 2?5 4@>>F?:EJ C6DA@?D:3:=:EJ FA96=5 F?56C s6>@F=2D’ =6256CD9:A]k^Am

    kAm~? %9FCD52J[ |6E9F6? |2J@C s]y] q62FC682C5 324<65 pCE9FC %] s6>@F=2D 😕 2 =6EE6C E@ E96 3@2C5 2?5 FC865 2? 6?5 E@ 3@2C5C@@> 5C2>2 @? 3692=7 @7 C6D:56?ED H9@ D9@A 2?5 H@C< 2E E96 4:EJ’D EH@ |2C<6E q2D<6E DE@C6D]k^Am

    kAm~? uC:52J[ {@H6== |2J@C s2? #@FC<6 2?5 E96 r:EJ r@F?4:= G@:465 DFAA@CE 7@C s6>@F=2D 😕 2 =6EE6C E@ E96 3@2C5]k^Am

    kAms6>@F=2D 92D 366? DFDA6?565 D:?46 |2J ag 7@C 2==6865=J A=2??:?8 2 H@C< DE@AA286]k^Am

    kAmw6 2?5 E9C66 3@2C5 >6>36CD 925 366? 2E =@886C9625D[ H:E9 E96 >6>36CD 4=2:>:?8 s6>@F=2D C67FD65 E@ AC@G:56 E96> H:E9 32D:4 7:?2?4:2= :?7@C>2E:@? ?66565 E@ 7F=7:== E96:C @G6CD:89E 5FE:6D]k^Am

    kAmp=D@ DFDA6?565 @? |2J ag H6C6 EH@ @7 s6>@F=2D’ 49:=5C6? 2?5 EH@ =@J2= 6I64FE:G6D[ y@6 $49>:5E 2?5 %@> v@C5@?[ 3@E9 @7 H9@> H6C6 7:C65 %F6D52J]k^Am

    kAm%96 4@>A2?J 92D 2=D@ DFDA6?565 s:DEC:4E $FA6CG:D@C !2F= “F:8=6J @7 w2G6C9:==]k^Am

    kAmq@2C5 r92:C>2? y2J w249:8:2? D2:5 E96C6 H:== 36 ?@ 492?86D 2E |2C<6E q2D<6E DE@C6D]k^Am

    kAm“|2C<6E q2D<6E H:== 4@?E:?F6 E@ AC@G:56 E96 D2>6 8C62E 8C@46C:6D 2E E96 =@H6DE AC:46D 2?5 =:G6 FA E@ :ED 4F=EFC6 2?5 >@EE@[ ‘|@C6 u@C *@FC s@==2C[’” w249:8:2? DE2E65 😕 2 =6EE6C D6?E uC:52J E@ E96 |6E9F6? >2J@C]k^Am

    kAmp=D@ @? uC:52J[ E96 3@2C5’D =2HJ6C[ w2CG6J (@=<@77 @7 E96 =2H 7:C> “F:?? t>2?F6=[ H9:49 😀 :?G6DE:82E:?8 E96 2==6865 A=2??65 H@C< DE@AA286 3J E96 rt~[ 92D 2??@F?465 E92E E96 AC@36 😀 ?62C=J 4@>A=6E6]k^Am

    kAmw6 D2:5 E96 3@2C5 92D 564:565 E@ ?@E C6=62D6 :ED 7:?5:?8D F?E:= >65:2E:@? 92D 366? 8:G6? 2 492?46[ D4965F=65 7@C $6AE] b]k^Am

    kAmpCE9FC %] s6>@F=2D 925 J6E[ 2D @7 $F?52J[ E@ C6=62D6 2 DE2E6>6?E @? E96 >65:2E:@?]k^Am

    [ad_2]

    By Terry Date | tdate@eagletribune.com

    Source link

  • At V.P debate, J.D. Vance and Tim Walz scapegoat immigrants, ‘corporate speculators’ for high housing costs

    At V.P debate, J.D. Vance and Tim Walz scapegoat immigrants, ‘corporate speculators’ for high housing costs

    [ad_1]

    Both candidates at tonight’s vice-presidential debate agreed that housing costs are too high. And both Sen. J.D. Vance (R–Ohio) and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz had their favorite scapegoats to blame the problem on.

    For Vance, it was immigrants.

    “You’ve got housing that is totally unaffordable because we brought in millions of illegal immigrants to compete with Americans for scarce homes,” said the Republican vice-presidential nominee.

    Instead of “blaming migrants for everything on housing, we could talk a little bit about Wall Street speculators buying up housing and making them less affordable,” responded the Democrat.

    Neither candidate’s answer is particularly surprising. Vance has blamed immigrants for raising housing costs throughout the campaign. The GOP party platform claims that deportations will help bring housing costs down.

    Meanwhile, the Democratic presidential nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris, has repeatedly blamed “corporate landlords” and “Wall Street” for rising rents and home prices. As a solution, she has endorsed capping rents at properties owned by larger corporate investors and using antitrust law to stop landlords from using rent-recommendation software. Walz was merely aping his running mate’s rhetoric.

    Vance, to be sure, has also repeatedly blamed institutional investors for raising Americans’ housing costs.

    There’s a straightforward logic to both candidate’s claims. Increased demand for housing, whether from immigrants or corporate investors, would be expected to increase prices.

    But increased demand should also be expected to increase supply, bringing prices back down.

    Corporate investors and immigrants also play an important, direct role in increasing housing supply. Investors supply capital to build new homes. Immigrants supply labor for the same.

    At least one study has found that the labor shortages caused by immigration restrictions do more to raise the cost of housing than they do to lower it through reduced demand.

    Higher demand fails to translate into supply when the government restricts homebuilding through regulations that limit where and how much housing developers can build.

    California and New Jersey have the same percentage of foreign-born residents. California also has a lot more regulatory restrictions on home building than New Jersey. The median home price in New Jersey is 30 percent cheaper as a result.

    Vance cited a Federal Reserve study showing that immigration increased housing costs, promising to share the paper later on social media. (The campaign has thus far shared remarks, not studies, from Fed officials, to the effect that immigration has increased demand for housing, which duh.)

    Contra Walz, one study has found that restrictions on investor-owned rental housing raised rents and raised the incomes of residents in select neighborhoods by excluding lower-income renters. Studies on the effects of rent-recommendation software have found mixed effects on housing costs. In tight markets, such software raises rents. When supply is loose, it lowers them.

    As always, the ability of builders to add new supply is what sets the price in the long term. Both candidates gestured at this in their own way, although Walz was more explicit about the relationship.

    “We cut some of the red tape,” he said, referencing Minneapolis’ experience of liberalizing zoning laws and seeing housing costs fall. Walz’s pro-supply remarks were nevertheless sandwiched between calls for spending more on affordable housing and down-payment assistance.

    On the supply side of the equation, Vance referenced Trump’s plan to open up federal lands for more development, saying the feds own lands “that aren’t being used for anything. They’re not being used for national parks. They’re not being used and it could be places where we build a lot of housing. And I do think that we should be opening up building in this country.”

    In some Western states, the federal government is the largest landowner and its undeveloped lands act as a de facto urban growth boundary. Vance is right that opening up those lands for development would add supply and lower prices.

    Unfortunately, his support for residential development on currently federal-owned land was immediately succeeded by a call to kick out the illegal immigrants who are competing for homes.

    So there you have it. Both candidates recognized the role that home building and home supply plays in reducing housing costs. But both were also keen to single out scapegoats—immigrants for Vance, Wall Street for Walz—for increasing demand and prices.

    Walz acknowledged tonight that there’s not a lot the federal government can do to reduce locally set land use regulations. He’s right. But the federal government does have a lot of other levers they can pull to make housing costs worse, from immigration restrictions to nationwide rent control.

    And both candidates indicated that they’d pull those levers.

    [ad_2]

    Christian Britschgi

    Source link

  • PolitiFact.com – No, your legal name is not a corporation

    PolitiFact.com – No, your legal name is not a corporation

    [ad_1]

    The capitalization used in standard birth certificates issued across the U.S. is nefarious, according to some online claims. 

    “Your legal name is in fact a corporation,” read a Feb. 27 Instagram post. “This is why you always see your name written in ALL CAPS.”

    The post, which featured a video clip of someone documenting a newborn’s footprint, said a birth certificate “is actually a death certificate” and people are all considered “legally dead.” 

    The caption sowed further confusion, claiming that people are considered “legally dead” at birth because parents sign children over to the government as corporations. 

    “When we’re born the government created this corporation in our name written in all CAPS, replacing it with the living spiritual flesh & blood you, so they can do business with us,” the caption said. “This is why 99% of the time anything from a corporation (corpse-ration) has your name written in all caps, your bills, ID, birth certificate — it’s your strawman.”

    This post was flagged as part of Meta’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.)

    The post’s use of the term “strawman” caught our attention.Promoters of the straw man conspiracy theory believe that with every birth certificate, the U.S. government sets up a fake identity or corporate trust in a newborn’s name. As a result, that person’s rights — and their obligations, including tax bills — are split between the physical person and the ones assigned to the baby’s fake identity or corporate account, which theory adherents call a “straw man.” 

    PolitiFact found no evidence supporting the discredited theory that a person’s name is a corporation, and false claims linked to this straw man theory have previously been fact-checked. 

    Promoters of the theory sometimes argue that they’re not required to pay taxes “because their tax bill is made out to a legal entity with a well-funded bank account that shares their name but isn’t actually them,” explained one History.com article. 

    People trying to avoid paying their taxes cite the theory frequently enough that the Internal Revenue Service has addressed it.

    “A taxpayer cannot avoid income tax on the erroneous theory that the government has created a separate and distinct entity or ‘straw man,’ in place of the taxpayer and that the taxpayer is not responsible for the tax obligations of the ‘straw man,’” read a 2005 IRS bulletin. “This argument has no merit and is frivolous.”

    In a 2006 bulletin, the IRS addressed capitalization: “The use of all uppercase letters, italics, abbreviations or other formats of an individual’s name in government documents has no significance whatsoever,” the agency wrote.

    Birth certificates and other important, official documents — sometimes referred to as vital records — often use upper case letters. 

    Missouri’s Department of Health and Senior Services explained why on its website: “This common administrative practice is done to better sort and locate vital records and to enhance the clarity and reporting of information through a standardized style.”

    A U.S. State Department spokesperson said that formatting, including any capitalization, used on forms is meant to reduce confusion and ensure clarity for people reading the documents. The State Department issues official documents related to U.S. consular births and deaths abroad.

    For documents such as passports, international standards for displaying data help streamline and speed up administrative procedures during travel. The International Civil Aviation Organization recommends using uppercase letters for names. 

    The straw man theory is often promoted by members of the sovereign citizen movement, a group that rejects the authority of government entities and considers its members exempt from laws. In 2011, the FBI said some sovereign citizens’ actions are “quirky,” rather than criminal, or are seemingly minor infractions. 

    “However, a closer look at sovereign citizens’ more severe crimes, from financial scams to impersonating or threatening law enforcement officials, gives reason for concern,” the FBI wrote.

    Our ruling

    An Instagram post claimed, “Your legal name is in fact a corporation,” which is why people’s names are written in capital letters on official documents. 

    We found no evidence supporting this baseless claim, which is linked to a persistent and unfounded conspiracy theory. To standardize documents, people’s names are often listed in capital letters on official documents such as birth certificates and passports. 

    We rate this claim Pants on Fire!

    RELATED: Paying your taxes is mandatory, not optional

    RELATED: An 1871 law did not make the United States government a corporation

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • PolitiFact – Falso: Toyota no anunció que dejará de fabricar coches

    PolitiFact – Falso: Toyota no anunció que dejará de fabricar coches

    [ad_1]

    Los coches Toyotas siguen a la venta, a pesar de lo que dice un video en Facebook.

    El video del 1 de diciembre dice que Toyota, la automotriz de Japón, anunció que dejará de fabricar vehículos. La publicación muestra la imagen de lo que parece ser un concesionario de Toyota con una etiqueta que dice “cerrado”. 

    El narrador del video dice, “Toyota acaba de anunciar que dejará de fabricar coches por esta insólita razón” — y procede a contar la historia de cómo se creó la compañía automotriz, pero no termina de decir la supuesta razón. 

    La publicación fue marcada como parte del esfuerzo de Meta para combatir las noticias falsas y la desinformación en su plataforma. (Lea más sobre nuestra colaboración con Meta, propietaria de Facebook e Instagram).

    PolitiFact contactó a Toyota, pero no recibió una respuesta.

    PolitiFact busco en Google, la página web de prensa de Toyota y noticias reportadas en medios de comunicación verídicos y no encontró nada sobre el cierre de Toyota.

    También notamos que alrededor del minuto 4:10, el video dice que Toyota dejará de producir su modelo Camry, un vehículo en el mercado desde hace varias décadas. Pero sólo pararán su fabricación en Japón, no en otros países como Estados Unidos. Tampoco dejará de fabricar otros modelos.

    En agosto, Toyota paró por 24 horas las operaciones en 14 de sus plantas manufactureras de vehículos en Japón, pero esto fue por un mal funcionamiento en su sistema, según CNN Business. 

    Ya que no hay evidencia de que Toyota dejará de fabricar vehículos, calificamos la publicación como Falsa. 

    Lea más reportes de PolitiFact en Español aquí.

    __________________________________________________________________________

    Debido a limitaciones técnicas, partes de nuestra página web aparecen en inglés. Estamos trabajando en mejorar la presentación.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Public Companies Info Boosted by Local News

    Public Companies Info Boosted by Local News

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — Accounting researchers at the University of Arkansas are deepening their understanding of the effect of shrinking newsrooms on the financial information of public companies.

    A new study, to be published in Review of Accounting Studies, shows that local newspaper coverage significantly improved the general information about public companies, as measured by lower stock volatility and more accurate forecasts by financial analysts. Conversely, when local newspaper coverage declined, stock volatility, information asymmetry and illiquidity increased, the researchers found.

    A sign of stock stability, information asymmetry refers to the difference or gap between two parties in their knowledge of relevant factors and details about companies’ value. Illiquidity simply means a security or asset that cannot be exchanged for cash or sold easily.   

    “Employment at newspapers has declined more than 75% since 2000,” said Caleb Rawson, assistant professor of accounting in the Sam M. Walton College of Business. “Researchers in other fields have already shown how this has a negative impact on local government, in terms of transparency and accountability of elected officials. We’re finding the same is true for businesses and public companies. These changes – that is, the decrease in local newsroom employment – have had a detrimental effect on the information environment of local firms.”

    Using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Rawson and co-authors Kris Allee, professor of accounting at the U of A,, and Ryan Cating, assistant professor of accounting at the University of Central Arkansas and a U of A doctoral alumnus in accounting, measured the level of local news intensity in each city (technically, each metropolitan statistical area, or MSA) as the percent of local jobs in the newspaper publishing industry. They compared this data to key indicators of firms’ financial information.

    The researchers found that the above effect – reduced news intensity leading to less or poorer quality of information – was exacerbated when a given firm was more important to the local economy. For these firms, less local newspaper intensity was associated with significantly lower analyst accuracy and fewer, or more dispersed, forecasts.

    Rawson and his colleagues also investigated how stakeholders respond to declines in local news coverage of firms. Firm managers increased the number of forward-looking financial disclosures and analysts increased their own coverage. Following decreases in newspaper employment, investors increased their own data-gathering activities as well.

    “We think these results provide insights into the methods by which stakeholders attempt to improve firms’ information environments when local news coverage fades and highlight the important role that local newspapers play in the economy,” Rawson said.

    Allee is the Doyle Z. Williams Chair of the Walton College’s Department of Accounting.

    [ad_2]

    University of Arkansas, Fayetteville

    Source link