#economy is for people- people are not for the economy | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

mostlysignssomeportents · 12 hours

Text

Antitrust is a labor issue

I'm touring my new, nationally bestselling novel The Bezzle! Catch me SATURDAY (Apr 27) in MARIN COUNTY, then Winnipeg (May 2), Calgary (May 3), Vancouver (May 4), and beyond!

This is huge: yesterday, the FTC finalized a rule banning noncompete agreements for every American worker. That means that the person working the register at a Wendy's can switch to the fry-trap at McD's for an extra $0.25/hour, without their boss suing them:

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/ftc-announces-rule-banning-noncompetes

The median worker laboring under a noncompete is a fast-food worker making close to minimum wage. You know who doesn't have to worry about noncompetes? High tech workers in Silicon Valley, because California already banned noncompetes, as did Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia and Washington.

The fact that the country's largest economies, encompassing the most "knowledge-intensive" industries, could operate without shitty bosses being able to shackle their best workers to their stupid workplaces for years after those workers told them to shove it shows you what a goddamned lie noncompetes are based on. The idea that companies can't raise capital or thrive if their know-how can walk out the door, secreted away in the skulls of their ungrateful workers, is bullshit:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/02/02/its-the-economy-stupid/#neofeudal

Remember when OpenAI's board briefly fired founder Sam Altman and Microsoft offered to hire him and 700 of his techies? If "noncompetes block investments" was true, you'd think they'd have a hard time raising money, but no, they're still pulling in billions in investor capital (primarily from Microsoft itself!). This is likewise true of Anthropic, the company's major rival, which was founded by (wait for it), two former OpenAI employees.

Indeed, Silicon Valley couldn't have come into existence without California's ban on noncompetes – the first silicon company, Shockley Semiconductors, was founded by a malignant, delusional eugenicist who also couldn't manage a lemonade stand. His eight most senior employees (the "Traitorous Eight") quit his shitty company to found Fairchild Semiconductor, a rather successful chip shop – but not nearly so successful as the company that two of Fairchild's top employees founded after they quit: Intel:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/10/24/the-traitorous-eight-and-the-battle-of-germanium-valley/

Likewise a lie: the tale that noncompetes raise wages. This theory – beloved of people whose skulls are so filled with Efficient Market Hypothesis Brain-Worms that they've got worms dangling out of their nostrils and eye-sockets – holds that the right to sign a noncompete is an asset that workers can trade to their employers in exchange for better pay. This is absolutely true, provided you ignore reality.

Remember: the median noncompete-bound worker is a fast food employee making near minimum wage. The major application of noncompetes is preventing that worker from getting a raise from a rival fast-food franchisee. Those workers are losing wages due to noncompetes. Meanwhile, the highest paid workers in the country are all clustered in a a couple of cities in northern California, pulling down sky-high salaries in a state where noncompetes have been illegal since the gold rush.

If a capitalist wants to retain their workers, they can compete. Offer your workers get better treatment and better wages. That's how capitalism's alchemy is supposed to work: competition transmogrifies the base metal of a capitalist's greed into the noble gold of public benefit by making success contingent on offering better products to your customers than your rivals – and better jobs to your workers than those rivals are willing to pay. However, capitalists hate capitalism:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/18/in-extremis-veritas/#the-winnah

Capitalists hate capitalism so much that they're suing the FTC, in MAGA's beloved Fifth Circuit, before a Trump-appointed judge. The case was brought by Trump's financial advisors, Ryan LLC, who are using it to drum up business from corporations that hate Biden's new taxes on the wealthy and stepped up IRS enforcement on rich tax-cheats.

Will they win? It's hard to say. Despite what you may have heard, the case against the FTC order is very weak, as Matt Stoller explains here:

https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/ftc-enrages-corporate-america-by

The FTC's statutory authority to block noncompetes comes from Section 5 of the FTC Act, which bans "unfair methods of competition" (hard to imagine a less fair method than indenturing your workers). Section 6(g) of the Act lets the FTC make rules to enforce Section 5's ban on unfairness. Both are good law – 6(g) has been used many times (26 times in the five years from 1968-73 alone!).

The DC Circuit court upheld the FTC's right to "promulgate rules defining the meaning of the statutory standards of the illegality the Commission is empowered to prevent" in 1973, and in 1974, Congress changed the FTC Act, but left this rulemaking power intact.

The lawyer suing the FTC – Anton Scalia's larvum, a pismire named Eugene Scalia – has some wild theories as to why none of this matters. He says that because the law hasn't been enforced since the ancient days of the (checks notes) 1970s, it no longer applies. He says that the mountain of precedent supporting the FTC's authority "hasn't aged well." He says that other antitrust statutes don't work the same as the FTC Act. Finally, he says that this rule is a big economic move and that it should be up to Congress to make it.

Stoller makes short work of these arguments. The thing that tells you whether a law is good is its text and precedent, "not whether a lawyer thinks a precedent is old and bad." Likewise, the fact that other antitrust laws is irrelevant "because, well, they are other antitrust laws, not this antitrust law." And as to whether this is Congress's job because it's economically significant, "so what?" Congress gave the FTC this power.

Now, none of this matters if the Supreme Court strikes down the rule, and what's more, if they do, they might also neuter the FTC's rulemaking power in the bargain. But again: so what? How is it better for the FTC to do nothing, and preserve a power that it never uses, than it is for the Commission to free the 35-40 million American workers whose bosses get to use the US court system to force them to do a job they hate?

The FTC's rule doesn't just ban noncompetes – it also bans TRAPs ("training repayment agreement provisions"), which require employees to pay their bosses thousands of dollars if they quit, get laid off, or are fired:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/08/04/its-a-trap/#a-little-on-the-nose

The FTC's job is to protect Americans from businesses that cheat. This is them, doing their job. If the Supreme Court strikes this down, it further delegitimizes the court, and spells out exactly who the GOP works for.

This is part of the long history of antitrust and labor. From its earliest days, antitrust law was "aimed at dollars, not men" – in other words, antitrust law was always designed to smash corporate power in order to protect workers. But over and over again, the courts refused to believe that Congress truly wanted American workers to get legal protection from the wealthy predators who had fastened their mouth-parts on those workers' throats. So over and over – and over and over – Congress passed new antitrust laws that clarified the purpose of antitrust, using words so small that even federal judges could understand them:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/14/aiming-at-dollars/#not-men

After decades of comatose inaction, Biden's FTC has restored its role as a protector of labor, explicitly tackling competition through a worker protection lens. This week, the Commission blocked the merger of Capri Holdings and Tapestry Inc, a pair of giant conglomerates that have, between them, bought up nearly every "affordable luxury" brand (Versace, Jimmy Choo, Michael Kors, Kate Spade, Coach, Stuart Weitzman, etc).

You may not care about "affordable luxury" handbags, but you should care about the basis on which the FTC blocked this merger. As David Dayen explains for The American Prospect: 33,000 workers employed by these two companies would lose the wage-competition that drives them to pay skilled sales-clerks more to cross the mall floor and switch stores:

https://prospect.org/economy/2024-04-24-challenge-fashion-merger-new-antitrust-philosophy/

In other words, the FTC is blocking a $8.5b merger that would turn an oligopoly into a monopoly explicitly to protect workers from the power of bosses to suppress their wages. What's more, the vote was unanimous, include the Commission's freshly appointed (and frankly, pretty terrible) Republican commissioners:

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/ftc-moves-block-tapestrys-acquisition-capri

A lot of people are (understandably) worried that if Biden doesn't survive the coming election that the raft of excellent rules enacted by his agencies will die along with his presidency. Here we have evidence that the Biden administration's anti-corporate agenda has become institutionalized, acquiring a bipartisan durability.

And while there hasn't been a lot of press about that anti-corporate agenda, it's pretty goddamned huge. Back in 2021, Tim Wu (then working in the White wrote an executive order on competition that identified 72 actions the agencies could take to blunt the power of corporations to harm everyday Americans:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/party-its-1979-og-antitrust-back-baby

Biden's agency heads took that plan and ran with it, demonstrating the revolutionary power of technical administrative competence and proving that being good at your job is praxis:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/10/18/administrative-competence/#i-know-stuff

In just the past week, there's been a storm of astoundingly good new rules finalized by the agencies:

A minimum staffing ratio for nursing homes;

The founding of the American Climate Corps;

A guarantee of overtime benefits;

A ban on financial advisors cheating retirement savers;

Medical privacy rules that protect out-of-state abortions;

A ban on junk fees in mortgage servicing;

Conservation for 13m Arctic acres in Alaska;

Classifying "forever chemicals" as hazardous substances;

A requirement for federal agencies to buy sustainable products;

Closing the gun-show loophole.

That's just a partial list, and it's only Thursday.

Why the rush? As Gerard Edic writes for The American Prospect, finalizing these rules now protects them from the Congressional Review Act, a gimmick created by Newt Gingrich in 1996 that lets the next Senate wipe out administrative rules created in the months before a federal election:

https://prospect.org/politics/2024-04-23-biden-administration-regulations-congressional-review-act/

In other words, this is more dazzling administrative competence from the technically brilliant agencies that have labored quietly and effectively since 2020. Even laggards like Pete Buttigieg have gotten in on the act, despite a very poor showing in the early years of the Biden administration:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/11/dinah-wont-you-blow/#ecp

Despite those unpromising beginnings, the DOT has gotten onboard the trains it regulates, and passed a great rule that forces airlines to refund your money if they charge you for services they don't deliver:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/04/24/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-announces-rules-to-deliver-automatic-refunds-and-protect-consumers-from-surprise-junk-fees-in-air-travel/

The rule also bans junk fees and forces airlines to compensate you for late flights, finally giving American travelers the same rights their European cousins have enjoyed for two decades.

It's the latest in a string of muscular actions taken by the DOT, a period that coincides with the transfer of Jen Howard from her role as chief of staff to FTC chair Lina Khan to a new gig as the DOT's chief of competition enforcement:

https://prospect.org/infrastructure/transportation/2024-04-25-transportation-departments-new-path/

Under Howard's stewardship, the DOT blocked the merger of Spirit and Jetblue, and presided over the lowest flight cancellation rate in more than decade:

https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/2023-numbers-more-flights-fewer-cancellations-more-consumer-protections

All that, along with a suite of protections for fliers, mark a huge turning point in the US aviation industry's long and worsening abusive relationship with the American public. There's more in the offing, too including a ban on charging families extra for adjacent seats, rules to make flying with wheelchairs easier, and a ban on airlines selling passenger's private information to data brokers.

There's plenty going on in the world – and in the Biden administration – that you have every right to be furious and/or depressed about. But these expert agencies, staffed by experts, have brought on a tsunami of rules that will make every working American better off in a myriad of ways. Those material improvements in our lives will, in turn, free us up to fight the bigger, existential fights for a livable planet, free from genocide.

It may not be a good time to be alive, but it's a much better time than it was just last week.

And it's only Thursday.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/25/capri-v-tapestry/#aiming-at-dollars-not-men

#pluralistic #labor #antitrust #trustbusting #noncompetes #indenture #ftc #matt stoller #david dayen #tapestry #luxury fashion #capri

364 notes · View notes

probablyasocialecologist · 2 days

Text

Extreme poverty should not exist, period. The fact that up to 17 percent of the world population lives in extreme poverty today (according to Robert Allen’s data on cost-of-basic-needs poverty) should be understood as an indictment of our economic system. It is a sign that severe social dislocation remains institutionalized in the capitalist world economy. Yes, the prevalence of extreme poverty is lower today than it was at the height of the colonial period, but this is not sufficient reason for celebration. The colonial high-water mark was an effect of capitalist policy and should never have existed. Furthermore, extreme poverty can and should be ended immediately. It does not require further increases in aggregate production, it does not require a massive mobilization of charity; rather, it requires no more than restoring people’s access to the basic resources they need for survival. The existing world economy, despite its extraordinary output, appears incapable of achieving this basic objective: projections indicate that with existing trends it will take at least forty years to end extreme poverty, even according to the World Bank’s inadequate metric (three decades later than promised by the sustainable development goals), and possibly as long as a century. This should be condemned as a failure. Instead, we are enjoined to accept as “normal” a form of suffering that need not exist and can be ended immediately. What is required? We must ensure peasants have access to productive land, workers have secure employment and living wages, and universal access to affordable housing and food. This is not complicated, it is basic.

Jason Hickel and Dylan Sullivan, Capitalism, Global Poverty, and the Case for Democratic Socialism

#poverty #extreme poverty #jason hickel

105 notes · View notes

dailyoverview · 2 days

Text

Greater Tokyo, Japan, is one of the most populated and industrialized regions in the world. Encompassing several major cities, including Tokyo, Kawasaki and Yokohama, it is home to more than 38 million people. The so-called “Capital Region” also has the largest metropolitan economy in the world, with a total gross domestic product (GDP) of about $1.8 trillion.

35.689722°, 139.692222°

Source imagery: Airbus Space

130 notes · View notes

seonghwacore · 1 day

Text

be real honest. which member of your favorite group whose personality is actually similar to you? are they your bias or not?

#ann.txt #ive been curious about this #esp to atinys but i think people from other fandoms might see and want to share too #in my case my personality is the closest to mingi hongjoong and scoups (with less $$$)#mingi mainly cus of his thinking framework and bluntness constantly talking abt world economy whatsoever 😂#his “cost-benefit” mindset is strong and its shown? but it doesnt make him cold or careless abt his friends #and you know what else is strong in him? his simpness for yunho. boi doesnt have anything bad abt him he has his name in his head 25/8 #i think if i have my own “yunho” person i'll have nothing in my head but them too #i think if hes just a clerical worker or avg uni student hed do a good job in business or any job/study thats data driven?#hongjoong and coups. assertive yet open to feedbacks. they treat it as opportunity to improve and reach out wider audiences #while attentive to their members their works the top priority. if they can work then why sleep #be the $$$ daddies 🤑#just in real life yet tricky in games 🤪 but sometimes im also a fool like mingi 🤪🤪🤪#and nope theyre not my bias but its amazing to know you gentlemen 🤝#PLUS THEYRE ALL BIG BABIES MAXIMUM OF 5 YEARS OLD #I AM 5

32 notes · View notes

follow-up-news · 1 day

Text

This past Christmas Day was the 30th anniversary of the public execution by firing squad of Romania’s last Communist dictator, Nicolae Ceaușescu, who’d ruled for 24 years. In 1990, the outside world discovered his network of “child gulags,” in which an estimated 170,000 abandoned infants, children, and teens were being raised. Believing that a larger population would beef up Romania’s economy, Ceaușescu had curtailed contraception and abortion, imposed tax penalties on people who were childless, and celebrated as “heroine mothers” women who gave birth to 10 or more. Parents who couldn’t possibly handle another baby might call their new arrival “Ceauşescu’s child,” as in “Let him raise it.” To house a generation of unwanted or unaffordable children, Ceauşescu ordered the construction or conversion of hundreds of structures around the country. Signs displayed the slogan: the state can take better care of your child than you can.

This is a gift link for 14 days.

#romania #Nicolae Ceaușescu

47 notes · View notes

prithsposts · 1 day

Text

In this economy, Princess Varadha had to lift a finger 😤 how dare you!! People

#prithviraj sukumaran #prithviraj gifs #daily gifs #movie gifs #varadha rajamannar #salaar

31 notes · View notes

leechs · 2 hours

Text

not to get deep but the same thing that happened to hawaii is now happening to florida and i do think that celebrity culture and social media is a big part of it now that nyc and la have become largely inaccessible for most people to live in… meanwhile people whose families have lived here for generations are being forced to move to other states bc the influx of northerners and westerners moving and investing in property here is absolutely destroying the housing market in an economy based largely on low wage hospitality, service, and agriculture jobs… even moving from a large city to a smaller town here is difficult bc then you just have to commute insane distances for jobs…

33 notes · View notes

sailor-aviator · 1 day

Text

Moonie

Story: Road to Perdition (1930s!Mobster!AU)

Love Interest: Jake "Hangman" Seresin

The Great Depression wasn't called a depression for nothing. Times were hard, and people took work anywhere they could get it. Crime hit an all time high following the collapse of the economy, and one in four American workers was unemployed.

Moonshine, or Moonie as most call her, comes from a family of known bootleggers. While her parents have long passed on, her brother is still in charge of the business, and if you ask Moonie, it's a wonder they have any business left with how much he drinks. Moonie works for the city paper, writing fluff pieces and taking photos with her own, personal camera (that she worked hard to get herself, thank you very much). On a run to the bank to deposit her latest earnings, she comes face to face with the notorious members of the Dagger Gang, one of which can't seem to take his eyes off her. Will Moonie keep her nose clean? Or is she already six feet under?

#moodboard #character profile #rtp #road to perdition #30s!mobster!au #mobster!jake #jake hangman seresin x reader #jake hangman seresin x you #jake seresin x reader #jake seresin x you #hangman x reader #hangman x you #hangman top gun #top gun hangman

29 notes · View notes

dailyanarchistposts · 1 day

Text

A.2.8 Is it possible to be an anarchist without opposing hierarchy?

No. We have seen that anarchists abhor authoritarianism. But if one is an anti-authoritarian, one must oppose all hierarchical institutions, since they embody the principle of authority. For, as Emma Goldman argued, “it is not only government in the sense of the state which is destructive of every individual value and quality. It is the whole complex authority and institutional domination which strangles life. It is the superstition, myth, pretence, evasions, and subservience which support authority and institutional domination.” [Red Emma Speaks, p. 435] This means that “there is and will always be a need to discover and overcome structures of hierarchy, authority and domination and constraints on freedom: slavery, wage-slavery [i.e. capitalism], racism, sexism, authoritarian schools, etc.” [Noam Chomsky, Language and Politics, p. 364]

Thus the consistent anarchist must oppose hierarchical relationships as well as the state. Whether economic, social or political, to be an anarchist means to oppose hierarchy. The argument for this (if anybody needs one) is as follows:

“All authoritarian institutions are organised as pyramids: the state, the private or public corporation, the army, the police, the church, the university, the hospital: they are all pyramidal structures with a small group of decision-makers at the top and a broad base of people whose decisions are made for them at the bottom. Anarchism does not demand the changing of labels on the layers, it doesn’t want different people on top, it wants us to clamber out from underneath.” [Colin Ward, Anarchy in Action, p. 22]

Hierarchies “share a common feature: they are organised systems of command and obedience” and so anarchists seek “to eliminate hierarchy per se, not simply replace one form of hierarchy with another.” [Bookchin, The Ecology of Freedom, p. 27] A hierarchy is a pyramidally-structured organisation composed of a series of grades, ranks, or offices of increasing power, prestige, and (usually) remuneration. Scholars who have investigated the hierarchical form have found that the two primary principles it embodies are domination and exploitation. For example, in his classic article “What Do Bosses Do?” (Review of Radical Political Economy, Vol. 6, No. 2), a study of the modern factory, Steven Marglin found that the main function of the corporate hierarchy is not greater productive efficiency (as capitalists claim), but greater control over workers, the purpose of such control being more effective exploitation.

Control in a hierarchy is maintained by coercion, that is, by the threat of negative sanctions of one kind or another: physical, economic, psychological, social, etc. Such control, including the repression of dissent and rebellion, therefore necessitates centralisation: a set of power relations in which the greatest control is exercised by the few at the top (particularly the head of the organisation), while those in the middle ranks have much less control and the many at the bottom have virtually none.

Since domination, coercion, and centralisation are essential features of authoritarianism, and as those features are embodied in hierarchies, all hierarchical institutions are authoritarian. Moreover, for anarchists, any organisation marked by hierarchy, centralism and authoritarianism is state-like, or “statist.” And as anarchists oppose both the state and authoritarian relations, anyone who does not seek to dismantle all forms of hierarchy cannot be called an anarchist. This applies to capitalist firms. As Noam Chomsky points out, the structure of the capitalist firm is extremely hierarchical, indeed fascist, in nature:

“a fascist system… [is] absolutist — power goes from top down … the ideal state is top down control with the public essentially following orders. “Let’s take a look at a corporation… [I]f you look at what they are, power goes strictly top down, from the board of directors to managers to lower managers to ultimately the people on the shop floor, typing messages, and so on. There’s no flow of power or planning from the bottom up. People can disrupt and make suggestions, but the same is true of a slave society. The structure of power is linear, from the top down.” [Keeping the Rabble in Line, p. 237]

David Deleon indicates these similarities between the company and the state well when he writes:

“Most factories are like military dictatorships. Those at the bottom are privates, the supervisors are sergeants, and on up through the hierarchy. The organisation can dictate everything from our clothing and hair style to how we spend a large portion of our lives, during work. It can compel overtime; it can require us to see a company doctor if we have a medical complaint; it can forbid us free time to engage in political activity; it can suppress freedom of speech, press and assembly — it can use ID cards and armed security police, along with closed-circuit TVs to watch us; it can punish dissenters with ‘disciplinary layoffs’ (as GM calls them), or it can fire us. We are forced, by circumstances, to accept much of this, or join the millions of unemployed… In almost every job, we have only the ‘right’ to quit. Major decisions are made at the top and we are expected to obey, whether we work in an ivory tower or a mine shaft.” [“For Democracy Where We Work: A rationale for social self-management”, Reinventing Anarchy, Again, Howard J. Ehrlich (ed.), pp. 193–4]

Thus the consistent anarchist must oppose hierarchy in all its forms, including the capitalist firm. Not to do so is to support archy — which an anarchist, by definition, cannot do. In other words, for anarchists, ”[p]romises to obey, contracts of (wage) slavery, agreements requiring the acceptance of a subordinate status, are all illegitimate because they do restrict and restrain individual autonomy.” [Robert Graham, “The Anarchist Contract, Reinventing Anarchy, Again, Howard J. Ehrlich (ed.), p. 77] Hierarchy, therefore, is against the basic principles which drive anarchism. It denies what makes us human and “divest[s] the personality of its most integral traits; it denies the very notion that the individual is competent to deal not only with the management of his or her personal life but with its most important context: the social context.” [Murray Bookchin, Op. Cit., p. 202]

Some argue that as long as an association is voluntary, whether it has a hierarchical structure is irrelevant. Anarchists disagree. This is for two reasons. Firstly, under capitalism workers are driven by economic necessity to sell their labour (and so liberty) to those who own the means of life. This process re-enforces the economic conditions workers face by creating “massive disparities in wealth … [as] workers… sell their labour to the capitalist at a price which does not reflect its real value.” Therefore:

“To portray the parties to an employment contract, for example, as free and equal to each other is to ignore the serious inequality of bargaining power which exists between the worker and the employer. To then go on to portray the relationship of subordination and exploitation which naturally results as the epitome of freedom is to make a mockery of both individual liberty and social justice.” [Robert Graham, Op. Cit., p. 70]

It is for this reason that anarchists support collective action and organisation: it increases the bargaining power of working people and allows them to assert their autonomy (see section J).

Secondly, if we take the key element as being whether an association is voluntary or not we would have to argue that the current state system must be considered as “anarchy.” In a modern democracy no one forces an individual to live in a specific state. We are free to leave and go somewhere else. By ignoring the hierarchical nature of an association, you can end up supporting organisations based upon the denial of freedom (including capitalist companies, the armed forces, states even) all because they are “voluntary.” As Bob Black argues, ”[t]o demonise state authoritarianism while ignoring identical albeit contract-consecrated subservient arrangements in the large-scale corporations which control the world economy is fetishism at its worst.” [The Libertarian as Conservative, The Abolition of Work and other essays, p. 142] Anarchy is more than being free to pick a master.

Therefore opposition to hierarchy is a key anarchist position, otherwise you just become a “voluntary archist” — which is hardly anarchistic. For more on this see section A.2.14 ( Why is voluntarism not enough?).

Anarchists argue that organisations do not need to be hierarchical, they can be based upon co-operation between equals who manage their own affairs directly. In this way we can do without hierarchical structures (i.e. the delegation of power in the hands of a few). Only when an association is self-managed by its members can it be considered truly anarchistic.

We are sorry to belabour this point, but some capitalist apologists, apparently wanting to appropriate the “anarchist” name because of its association with freedom, have recently claimed that one can be both a capitalist and an anarchist at the same time (as in so-called “anarcho” capitalism). It should now be clear that since capitalism is based on hierarchy (not to mention statism and exploitation), “anarcho”-capitalism is a contradiction in terms. (For more on this, see Section F)

24 notes · View notes

dankxsinatra · 5 hours

Text

fuggin geniuses in the white house want to raise taxes during a massive recession. the only reason to do this is if you actively hate the American people and want more people to suffer in this economy.

But vote blue no matter who amirite?

34 notes · View notes

uniquexusposts · 2 days

Text

Her || Charles Leclerc

Chapter 2: From Friends to Rivals

Matilde found herself in unfamiliar territory as she sat on a relaxing stool in the airport lounge of the airline she was flying with today. It was the first time she sat in an airport lounge - a lounge for business class, because usually she flew economy as that was all she could pay for. And since she wasn't a 'Head' of a department, or someone that important, she flew economy with her team. And now as team principal, she sat in a lounge, between people with money and probably a status. Nevertheless, her flight was delayed. Whether you sit in a lounge or at the gate, the impatience level feels the same.

A teasing remark snapped her out of her contemplation. "You won't make friends with that look on your face, ey."

The new team principal looked up and she was greeted by her best friend and ex-colleague. With a playful response, Matilde countered: "It's a good thing that I am not waiting to make any new friends," Matilde replied and sat up. "Hello, darling."

Gemma sat down on the stool in front of her. "Finally," she breathed, the weight of the past three weeks hearable in her words. "What a week, well, three weeks; testing, racing, everything." She looked next to her and saw two people joining them by sitting down at the two seats next to them.

"Hello," GP smiled, Max Verstappen's race engineer.

"Hey, hey," Hannah chimed in and sat down, she was the Head of Strategy.

Matilde looked at her former colleagues, now rivals. A smile grew on her face. "Now I finally get to experience how it feels to be important," she teased. "You get fancy shit."

"Do you know how extremely hard we work?" Gemma replied with a mock-offended expression on her face.

GP smirked. "All you get to do is listen to Max during interviews," he said to Gemma.

A collective laughter enveloped them. As the amusement settled, Matilde added her own remark. "Oh, right, and the husband has the toughest job ever here." She looked at GP.

They all laughed.

"But Matt, let's debrief. Tell me about your week." Hannah's tone shifted, steering the conversation toward a more serious topic.

Matilde's expression took on a thoughtful cast, the weight of her new role evident in her gaze. "It has been a rollercoaster," she began, a note of exhaustion and determination in her voice. "And I am still on it." She looked at them one by one, figuring out if she could speak out loud about her thoughts. These three people were close to her during her time at Red Bull. Matilde joined Red Bull at the same time as GP, she was Hannah's right hand and Gemma became a really close friend. "Honestly, I have more respect for Christian now. It's only been a week, but I have no idea what I'm doing or what has happened."

"Why?" Gemma asked.

"I still have to process everything." Matilde took a deep breath. "I got here and I became Kim Kardashian."

"Yeah, of course. Binotto gets sacked and a day later you're here," Hannah remarked with a hint of playful scepticism.

"What's up with that?" GP curiously asked.

Matilde pressed the corners of her mouth down and threw her hands up in the air. "I don't know. Honestly, I'm just as surprised as you are. I mean, the deal was as good as done, but I was expected to start after the summer break. That's why I stepped down last year after Zandvoort, because I was already talking with Ferrari. But it's quite a red flag, isn't it? The fact that they let him do testing..."

"What do you expect from Ferrari?" Gemma said, adding a note of realism in her tone. "The team's as red as their livery."

GP looked disapproving at Gemma. "Don't let her regret making this decision, Gemma," he said.

"A new clown entered the circus. I hope I can keep up the act," Matilde blurted. "And stay for longer, make some changes, understand the deeper issues of this team and their philosophy, perhaps win some races. No, but I can't really say what I think of it yet, I still have to process everything, but so far, it's overwhelming and busy and nice."

GP took a sip of his cappuccino. "Woman is still in shock. And the team?"

"Tough crowd," she answered. "Exactly how I expected them to be. Stubborn, old-fashioned, but they're kind so far. It's different from Red Bull, with different people and team spirit."

"And Leclerc and Sainz?" Hannah asked.

"Can't really tell yet, honestly. They were both quite distant, Leclerc more than Sainz. But it's the first week, I don't know. I can't make assumptions already." Matilde took a deep breath. "But I don't have the same vibes, yet, as I had with Max and Checo - I can't really compare them with each other, but it feels like I have to earn Leclerc and Sainz's respect first."

Her friends exchanged knowing glances, understanding the feelings Matilde was experiencing.

"It's the first impression that counts the most," GP said, adding his perspective. "But like what?"

Matilde paused for a moment. Could she share this? But on the other hand, the race had passed and they had gathered the data already. And they spoke as equals rather than competitors. "I know the strategy is not my job anymore, I have a team for that. I can have an opinion on it and I have to keep it to myself, but..." Matilde let out a groan of frustration.

"Let me guess, you had a strategy in your mind and they didn't want to use it?" Hannah asked.

Matilde pressed her lips into a thin. "The jokes we made about the strategy at Ferrari?" She let out a breath. "Exactly that."

"Oh, boy," Gemma mumbled.

"Let's say there may be a reason why we didn't make it on the podium," Matilde replied and put on a professional smile. "I am not used to leading a team yet, I still have that team player inside me and I want to stir during the briefings, but I have other things to do."

Gemma grinned. "What was your strategy?"

Matilde only looked at her, not saying a word.

"Softs, 15, softs, 35, hards," Hannah filled in. "And what did you do?"

"Sainz had softs, 13, hards, 31, hards. Leclerc had softs, 13, hards, 33, hards," Matilde explained. "The result? Fourth and fifth position. It worked, I'm not denying that. I don't want to say this, but I'm convinced that if we used the strategy I proposed, we would have been in a fight with you. We could have pushed harder." Matilde shrugged. "But fine, first race, new team, new team principal. It's fine for now."

GP nodded in agreement. "But hey, don't be harsh on yourself. You managed to get points. It was almost a podium."

Her response was candid, her aspirations were set high. "It could have been a podium."

GP smiled. 'Look at you, there's that winning mentality.'

Matilde smiled as well and blushed a little bit.

"Your first times are always a bummer, they always suck. You can be satisfied, you didn't get a DNF for one or both cars," Gemma said. "All right, work aside. Are you going to the UK or Italy actually?" She turned the conversation towards her travel plans.

"Italy. My dad and brothers moved everything from Northampton to Modena. So I'm curious to see where I will end up, to see what Ferrari managed to get."

Gemma smirked. "Did you ask them to find you a place? Team principal commands at its finest."

"Gotta make use of my position now," Matilde replied playfully. "No, they offered to help me find a place. I was like: sure, you do you. I haven't seen any of it yet. I only know Italy as a holiday destination, not as a living situation."

The conversation continued, blurring the lines between their professional analyses and friendly banter. Matilde asked about their weekend and they talked about multiple situations within the Red Bull team.

Time, however, was slipping away. Matilde looked at her watch and sighed. "As much as I love spending time with you, my flight won't wait forever."

Gemma raised an eyebrow, a playful smirk on her lips. "Well, well, look at her. Our very own high-flying team principal on a tight schedule."

Matilde rolled her eyes with a chuckle.

"Yeah, we wouldn't want the mighty team principal to be late for her flight. Wouldn't want the plane to take off without her," GP chimed in.

"Hilarious, guys."

Hannah smiled. "We're just one garage away. You know where to find us," she amusingly smiled.

With a final exchange of smiles and hugs, Matilde turned and walked toward the exit of the lounge. She made her way to her gate and stepped on the plane, leaving the first weekend behind in Bahrain.

* * *

As the taxi navigated the surroundings of Emilia-Romagna, Matilde gazed out of the window, inspecting and observing the scenery that would now be her daily backdrop. She was tired. The flight from Bahrain was long; the time went slow. Since it was a day flight, she barely slept. She had a stop in Istanbul, but luckily she still made it to the planned flight to Bologna. It was almost evening, meaning she could jump into her bed once she got to her new place.

Seated comfortably in the backseat, Matilde pulled out her phone. As the taxi continued its journey, she navigated through various news articles and opinion pieces that were written about the Bahrain Grand Prix. She was no stranger to the media within the world, having spent years in the world and she got used to it, but this time it was different. The headlines were about her - Matilde Jørgensen, the new face of Scuderia Ferrari.

She read the articles with a mixture of curiosity and determination. The critics had their say about her, like they had about everyone on the grid, but this time, it was her. And only her. They were curious to see how a relatively young woman would handle the pressure at Ferrari and how she would lead the team without the knowledge of being a team principal. They spoke about her welcome, her decisions so far, the strategy choices and the team management during her first race weekend. Some praised her audacity to step into such a high-pressure role, while others (the most) questioned her lack of experience as a team principal. The highs and lows of the race weekend were analysed in black and white by experts and wannabes.

Matilde's lips pressed into a thin line as she read through the critics. She finally understood why famous people never read things about themselves, and she was only a team principal. Each word was a reminder of the immense responsibilities she had undertaken. She might be new to this role, but she was ready to learn, fail, adapt and prove herself.

Her attention alternated between the articles and the passing scenery. She had entered the city, her new home. With a final glance at her phone, she set it aside. Matilde was ready to take in her new city. But one sentence kept on repeating itself in her mind:

"Jørgensen is too present during the race."

The criticisms would always be there, people always had an opinion on something, no matter what or who you were.

As the taxi finally pulled into Matilde's street, her heart quickened. The taxi slowed and she took a deep breath as the taxi stopped. The driver told her that they arrived. Matilde paid for his services and got out of the car, being welcomed by the Italian air. The driver got her suitcase from the truck and gave it to the woman. Matilde thanked him once again.

She stood before the entrance of her new apartment building. Her gaze traced the building; the building had a timeless charm over it, a blend of classic Italian design and modern functionality. She walked to the front door and pressed on the bell of her apartment: number 6.

"Ja?"

"Det er mig: Matilde," she smiled, saying it was her, since her family was already at her new place.

"Oh, Tilly! Kom snart ind," her dad happily said, saying she had to enter the building quickly.

With a smile on her face, she entered the building. The entrance was roomy and just beautiful. She was welcomed with the scent of aged wood and fresh flowers. The lobby was a graceful fusion of traditional elements and contemporary aesthetics. It was like she had entered her Pinterest board. She walked up the stairs to her apartment on the third floor.

"Velkommen hjem," her dad welcomed Matilde home as she entered her place.

A warm feeling entered her body when she heard the Danish language. "Dad," she happily said and flew into his arms.

The reunion started when Matilde's two brothers appeared in the living room as well. Lars and Jens were happy to see their little sister, especially after this week, they were extremely proud. Viggo was a proud father too, of course. Matilde asked about how they moved her household from the UK to Italy.

"That's a worry for later," Lars smiled. "Go explore your new house."

Jens proudly smiled. "We tried to style it, and you can change it later, obviously, but this is what we thought was cool."

"Oh, it's amazing, guys. You are angels. How can I thank you?" Matilde placed her hands on her cheeks and didn't know where to look.

"By giving us paddock passes," Jens widely smiled.

Lars looked playfully, but disapprovingly at Jens. "Too early, dude."

Matilde hit Jens on his chest and rolled her eyes, shaking her head afterwards.

The apartment exuded a modern, yet classic and cosy ambience. It was weird to see her furniture standing in the space. She walked through her apartment and was surprised in every room she entered. It was a two-bedroom apartment, it wasn't big, but it was just her and she didn't need much space. The living room was small, but cosy; her couch just fitted in the space.

"This is amazing. Thank you so much. Wow." Matilde looked at her family. "It feels like we are on Buying Blind," she laughed, still perplexed on seeing her new apartment.

Co writer: @mistrose23

#f1 #formula 1 #formula one #charles leclerc #fanfic #carlos sainz #max verstappen #kevin magnussen #ferrari #scuderia ferrari #motorsports

21 notes · View notes