 |
|
|
|||||
After four years of U.S. progress on efforts to deal with climate change under Joe Biden, Donald Trumps return to the White House is swiftly swinging the pendulum in the opposite direction. On his first day back, Trump declared a national energy emergency, directing agencies to use any emergency powers available to boost oil and gas production, despite U.S. oil and gas production already being near record highs and leading the world. He revoked Bidens orders that had withdrawn large areas of the Arctic and the U.S. coasts from oil and natural gas leasing. Among several other executive orders targeting Bidens pro-climate policies, Trump also began the process of pulling the U.S. out of the international Paris climate agreementa repeat of a move he made in 2017, which Biden reversed. None of Trumps moves to sideline climate change as an important domestic and foreign policy issue should come as a surprise. During his first term as president, 2017-2021, Trump repealed the Obama-era Clean Power Plan for reducing power plant emissions, falsely claimed that wind turbines cause cancer, and promised to end the war on coal and boost the highly polluting energy source. He once declared that climate change was a hoax perpetuated by China. Since being elected again in November, Trump has again chosen Cabinet members who support the fossil fuel industry. But its important to remember that while Donald Trump is singing from the Republican Party songbook when it comes to climate change, the music was written long before he came along. Money, lies, and lobbying In 1979, the scientific consensus that climate change posed a significant threat to the environment, the economy, and society as we had come to appreciate them began to emerge. The Ad Hoc Study Group on Carbon Dioxide and Climate, commissioned by the U.S. National Research Councils climate research board, concluded then that if carbon dioxide continued to accumulate in the atmosphere, there was no reason to doubt that climate changes will result. Since then, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen by about 25%, and temperatures have risen with it. The report also concluded that land use changes and the burning of fossil fuels, both of which could be subject to regulation, were behind climate change and that a wait-and-see policy may mean waiting until it is too late. But none of this came as a surprise to the oil industry. Working behind the scenes since the 1950s, researchers working for companies such as Exxon, Shell, and Chevron had made their leaders well aware that the widespread use of their product was already causing climate change. And coinciding with the Ad Hoc Study Groups work in the late 1970s, oil companies started making large donations to national and state-level candidates and politicians they viewed as friendly to the interests of the industry. A summary of all global warming projections reported by ExxonMobil scientists in internal documents and peer-reviewed publications, 1977 to 2003, superimposed on observed temperature change (red). Solid gray lines indicate global warming projections modeled by ExxonMobil scientists; dashed gray lines are projections shared by ExxonMobil scientists from other sources. Shades of gray reflect start dates: earliest (1977) is lightest; latest (2003) is darkest. [Image: Geoffrey Supran/courtesy of the author] The oil industry also implemented a disinformation campaign designed to cast doubt about climate science and, in many cases, about their own internal research. The strategy, ripped from the pages of the tobacco industry playbook, involved emphasizing uncertainty to cast doubt on the science and calling for balanced science to sow confusion. This strategy was helped by the creation and financial backing of lobbying organizations such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Global Climate Coalition, both of which played central roles in spreading falsehoods and casting doubt on the scientific consensus about climate change. By 1997, when 84 countries signed the Kyoto Protocol to curb global greenhouse gas emissions, the oil industry had built an effective apparatus for actively discrediting climate science and opposing policies and actions that could help slow climate change. So even though President Bill Clinton signed the treaty in 1998, the United States Congress refused to ratify it. Partisan politics and the psychology of belonging The Kyoto Protocol experience demonstrated that the lobbying and disinformation tactics used by oil companies to discredit climate science could, on their own, be highly effective. But they alone didnt shift climate change from a scientific question to an issue of partisan politics. Two additional ingredients for completing the transition were still absent. The first of these came during the election campaign of 2000. At the time, the coverage of the major news networks converged on dividing the country into red states, which lean right, and blue states, which lean left. This shift, though seemingly innocuous at the time, made politics even less about individual issues and more like a team sport. Rather than asking people to construct their voting preferences based on a wide range of issuesfrom abortion and gun rights to immigration and climate changevotes could be earned by reminding and reinforcing for voters which team they should be cheering for: Republicans or Democrats. This shift also made it easier for the fossil fuel industry to keep climate change off state and federal policy agendas. Oil companies could focus their money, lobbying, and disinformation on Republican-controlled states and swing states where it would make the biggest difference. It shouldnt surprise anyone, for example, that it was a red state senator, James Inhofe of Oklahoma, who brought a snowball to the Senate floor in February 2015 to prove that the planet was not warming. The final ingredient had everything to do with human nature. Building on the analogy of a rivalry in sports, the red vs. blue state dynamic tapped into the psychological and social forces that shape our sense of belonging and identity. Subtle but powerful social pressures within groups can make it harder for people to accept ideas, evidence, and arguments from those outside the group. Likewise, these within-group pressures lead to preferential treatment for members who are in alignment with the groups perspectives, up to and including placing greater trust in those who appear to represent the groups collective interests. Within-group pressures also create stronger feelings of belonging among those who conform to the groups internal norms, such as which political positions to support. In turn, stronger feelings of belonging serve to further reinforce the norms. Where to from here? Opposing or supporting action on climate change has become part of millions of Americans cultural identity. However, doubling down on climate policies that are in lockstep with our own political leanings will serve only to strengthen the divide. A more effective solution would be to set aside political differences and invest in building coalitions across the political spectrum. That starts by focusing on shared values, such as keeping children healthy and communities safe. In the wake of devastating fires in my own city, Los Angeles, these shared values have risen to the top of the local political agenda regardless of who my neighbors and I voted for. Its clear to all of us that the consequences of climate change are very much in the here and now. Natural disasters across the U.S. have also brought the risks of climate change home for many people across the country. This, in turn, has led to bipartisan action on climate change at the local and regional levels, and between government and the private sector. The U.S. Climate Alliance, a coalition of 24 governors from both parties who are working to advance efforts to slow climate change, is one such example. Another example is the many U.S. companies with ties to government that participate in the First Movers Coalition, which aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from industries that have proven difficult to decarbonize, such as steel, transportation, and shipping. But, unfortunately for climate action, examples like these are still an exception rather than the norm. And this is a problem because the current climate challenge is much bigger than a single city, state, or even country. The past year, 2024, was the hottest on record. Many parts of the world experienced extreme heat waves and storms. However, every movement has to start somewhere. Continuing to chip away at the partisan barriers that separate Americans on climate change will require even more coalition building that sets an example by being ambitious, productive, and visible. With the new Trump administration poised to target the recent progress made on climate change while preparing executive actions that will increase greenhouse gas emissions, theres no better time for this work than the present. Joe Árvai is the director of the Wrigley Institute for Environment and Sustainability and a professor of psychology, biological sciences, and environmental studies at USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
Incarcerated people in Colorado are exposed to climate-related extreme heat and cold, plus flooding and wildfires. Because theyre unable to escape these hazards, their health suffers and some die. I remember it being summer, and theres no way to get away from the sun. And I remember people just burning, said one formerly incarcerated person. My [cellmate] at the time, . . . he was out there all day. And he was so purple, and he had edema on his head so bad, you could put your thumb in his forehead and [the print] would just stay. Another person recounted how they would escape the heat by pouring water on the ground of their cells to form a shallow pool. Granted, it was only a quarter-inch, at the most, deep, they said. But you would just strip down to your boxers and just lay on the floor in the water. Exposure to extreme heat, and other hazards caused by climate change, are not unique to Colorados prisons and jails. A study that looked at deaths of incarcerated people between 2001 and 2019 in Texas found that of more than 3,000 deaths in that time period, or 13%, could be attributable to extreme heat. The intensity and frequency of climate disasters are increasing at the same time as 1.2 million people are incarcerated in the U.S. Incarcerated people lack the ability to evacuate or otherwise protect themselves from heat, cold, wildfire, or the effects of these disasters. This simple fact led us to investigate the vulnerability of incarcerated people to climate hazards in Colorado. We are a collective of scholars in architecture, environmental communication, geotechnical hazards engineering, geography, sociology, and structural engineering. We have spent the past four years scrutinizing the vulnerability of carceral facilitiesbuildings like prisons, jails, and detention facilitiesto climate hazards. During that time, we also looked at the experiences of formerly incarcerated individuals. Our research has resulted in three papers, an exhibit at the University of Colorado Boulder, and two symposiums. We analyzed the exposure of 110 carceral facilities in Colorado to wildfire, flood, extreme temperatures, and landslides. We did so by mapping facility location and hazard exposure for single and multiple climate events, such as floods or the combination of fire and heat. We found that 75% of the facilities we studied had a moderate or high relative exposure to one or more of the hazards. These facilities house roughly 33,300 people, or 83% of people incarcerated in Colorado. Stories of incarcerated people In our most recent study from 2022 to 2023, we held a series of interviews and focus groups with formerly incarcerated people in Colorado to understand how climate hazards had affected their daily lives in detention. We found that climate-related extreme temperatures, wildfires, and flood events affected the majority, about 65% of the 35 study participants. To check the validity of what we learned from this small sample, we compared the information we collected with other investigations and projects, and found they were aligned. The people we interviewed experienced prolonged exposure to temperatures upward of 90 degrees Fahrenheit (32 Celsius) and below freezing, poor air quality, and water contamination. We found that Black and Latino people were disproportionately exposed to these hazards, based on the location of the facilities where they were incarcerated. Their stories are harrowing. It was so cold at times in the winter that I would have every piece of clothing I had on, one participant said. I was also afraid to go to sleep at night because it felt like it was so cold that I would not wake up. In the morning, theres steel toilets, and so you would have ice in your toilet. Another participant described the smoke of a nearby wildfire. The smoke actually woke me up, and it was choking. I just couldnt breathe, and I was just coughing, coughing, the participant said. I asked if I could go, like, to medical, and they were just like, No, you cant go to medical at this time. Theres nothing we can do for you. As extreme temperatures become more common, we believe such stories are important to collect. They offer insights into experiences that may otherwise remain unheard and provide data for a more accurate quantification of the risks incarcerated people face. Our hope is that documentation of actual conditions will provide evidence that can be used for advocacy and reform. Compounding effects We discovered three common ways incarcerated people cope with their climate vulnerability: by trying to modify their environment, making commissary purchases, and lodging formal complaints. [W]hen its that hot, youre filling out that grievance, youre dehydrated because you cant go to the water fountain, everybodys mad, angry, pissed off, said one study participant. You have symptoms of heat exhaustion, your brain is not firing on all cylinders, and youre sitting there trying to do the right thing, trying to follow their procedures. This participant, and others, told us that if they made a mistake in their formal complaintseither by misspelling a word or using the wrong technical terminology for the problem at handtheir grievance could be dismissed. The study participants also talked about retaliation for grievances. If they were to file a lawsuit, according to an interviewee, prison staff members are going to make it the worst that it could possibly be. They feared inmate privileges could be taken away or, as one participant explained, people could be suddenly moved to another facility. That move could disrupt important connections with family, visitors, and their communities on the inside. Experiences such as these were corroborated by multiple participants. Prison officials did not respond to our requests for more information about their facilities or the exposure of incarcerated people to extreme weather. Lack of insight into prisons Talking to formerly incarcerated people about their experiences made us eager to see the facilities we were studying ourselves to reliably asses risk, but it was almost impossible to get permission to get inside prisons or talk to the people inside. Our requests to see building floor plans or engineering drawings, which would have allowed us to analyze the exposure of facility staff and incarcerated people to hazards such as extreme temperatures or flooding, were denied. Corrections officials said our requests raised security concerns. Regardless of their function, jails and prisons must keep their occupants safe. We believe Colorados current carceral infrastructure does not provide humane spaces that protect against increasingly intense and frequent climate hazards. This produces unjust human suffering and hampers the ability of people who are incarcerated to stay healthy. Shawhin Roudbari is an associate professor of environmental design at the University of Colorado Boulder. Shideh Dashti is an associate professor of civil, environmental and architectural engineering at the University of Colorado Boulder. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
Natalie Kerr and Jaime Kurtz are social psychologists and colleagues in the department of psychology at James Madison University. Kerrs work has been published in many academic journals, and she also writes for Psychology Today. Kurtz has also appeared in a variety of psychology journals, and previously authored The Happy Traveler, Positively Happy, and two Audible Original programs. Whats the big idea? Connecting socially has become increasingly complicated. Despite being more digitally connected than ever, our society is experiencing record-breaking loneliness. Many emerging cultural norms threaten to emotionally isolate us from one another. It is necessary for health and well-being that we practice the science-backed fundamentals of a meaningful social life. Below, coauthors Natalie and Jaime share five key insights from their new book, Our New Social Life: Science-Backed Strategies for Creating Meaningful Connection. (Listen to the audio versionread by Natalie and Jaimein the Next Big Idea App.) 1. Social connection isnt a luxury. Do you wish you had more time to spend with friends? If so, youre not alone. Surveys suggest that Americans spend less time with friends than they used to (now averaging just three hours a week!), and about half of people wish they had more time with friends. This trend can be partly attributed to our busy schedules but may also reflect shifting priorities. We have a fundamental need for social connection. We live happier, healthier, and longer lives when we have enough of it. Yet, in the modern world, we often view socializing as a luxury we can afford to live without. It can feel more like an indulgence than an essential need. When we feel pressed for time, happy hours, date nights, and brunches with friends are often the first things to go. This mindsetthat social connection is a luxury rather than an essential needcan create a barrier to social connection that we might not even be aware of. To overcome this barrier, we must remember that social connection is an essential health behavior (just as important as sleep, exercise, and good nutrition), and we need to prioritize it accordingly. Whether we consider ourselves introverts or extroverts, we must invest time, energy, and resources into relationships. 2. The norms of modern life make it hard for us to connect. Social norms are the unwritten rules for normal or acceptable behavior in a given context. In the U.S., social norms include shaking hands when greeting someone, saying please and thank you, and giving people plenty of personal space. Its good to conform to these types of social norms because they help people know what to expect during social interactions. They also help us maintain good relationships with others. However, there are other social norms that we should consider breaking. Lets consider a relatively new norm: using our phones in social settings. In a recent survey, nearly 90 percent of U.S. adults admitted to using their phone during their most recent social interaction. You can see this play out at nearly any restaurant, wedding reception, or fraternity party. Nearly 90 percent of U.S. adults admitted to using their phone during their most recent social interaction. Have you had the experience of someone repeatedly looking at their phone while youre telling them something important? Oreven worsehave you had someone reply to someone elses text message while you were talking to them? It feels crummy. Research confirms this behavior can make us feel rejected and less connected to our social partners. This behavior is also linked to increased conflict and decreased satisfaction in couples. This is just one example of how social norms can make connection difficult. Other examples include the fact that were spending more time alone. More people are living alone and working remotely. Weve also adopted busyness as a way of life, filling our schedules to the point where theres little room left for spontaneous connection. Additionally, modern parenting has become so time- and energy-intensive that many of us sacrifice our social lives to support our kids activities. These patterns are starting to feel normal, and many of us feel pressure to conform. We might even go along with these norms without even realizing it. If we want to live more connected lives, we need to start questioning and resisting some of the norms that define our modern social world. 3. Our assumptions about people are often wrong. Have you ever fretted over a social blunder you thought you committed, only to learn later that no one had noticed or cared? Have you ever felt rejected when a friend didnt return a text, only to discover they misplaced their phone? If youre like us, youve had the experience of misreading social cues. After all, making sense of other people is no easy task! We cant read minds, so we make inferences about others thoughts, feelings, and intentions. Decades of research demonstrate that our inferences are often wrong. For instance, we tend to underestimate how much others will appreciate our efforts to connect. This keeps us from striking up conversations with strangers who might eventually become friends, expressing gratitude to those weve never properly thanked, offering social support to friends in need, and performing random acts of kindness. Another example: have you ever replayed a conversation in your head, cringing at something you said? Its common for people to worry about the impression they made, but our fears are often overblown. Research shows that people tend to like us and enjoy our conversation more than we think they do. Researchers call this discrepancy the liking gap. Our faulty perceptions of other people can create a barrier to social connection. This barrier can be overcome by adopting a more positive outlook. Expect people to like you. Expect them to appreciate your gratitude, support, and kindness. Chances are, they truly will. In the rare instance that they dont, it probably had nothing to do with you. 4. Opportunities for connection are right in front of us. Many people think making friends is mysterious or determined by a persons unique attributeslike a great sense of humor or good looks. These factors do matter, but research suggests that liking is also triggered by simple, mundane factorslike how often you cross paths or how much you have in common. Overlooking these simple factors can cause you to miss out on the opportunities for connection right in front of you. The mere exposure effect applies to foods, fragrances, songs on the radio, andyespeople. One of the most overlooked factors is proximity. In the words of social psychologist Elliott Aronson, the people who are geographically nearest to you are most likely to become dearest to you s well. Theres nothing mysterious about the power of proximity. The more you see someone, the more opportunities there are to smile at one another, say hello, strike up a conversation, and discover common interests. The power of proximity is due to a very basic psychological phenomenon known as the mere exposure effect. In short, the more were exposed to something, the more we tend to like it. The mere exposure effect applies to foods, fragrances, songs on the radio, andyespeople. Put the mere exposure effect to work by just letting yourself be seen. Turn your camera on during Zoom meetings, comment on your friends social media posts, or go to the yoga studio instead of streaming a class in your living room. And try to be seen repeatedly. You could try going to the gym at the same time each day or attending the 9:00 am church service every Sunday. This increases the chances of crossing paths with the same people. Over time, youll start recognizing others, and theyll begin to recognize you, which could lead to something more. This advice is especially helpful for shy or quiet people. You dont need to be the wittiest or most outgoing person in the roomyou might just need to show up! 5. Opening up is risky, but worth it. How do you feel about deep conversations? The ones in which you admit your imperfections, share your true feelings or reveal your deepest longings. How do you feel about showing your true self in a friendship? Research suggests that many of us are reluctant to engage in these types of behaviors, but they are key to unlocking greater intimacy in relationships. Consider one study where participants engaged in shallow and deep conversations with strangers. In the shallow conversation, participants answered questions such as: How is your day going so far? In the deep conversation, participants disclosed more personal information by answering questions like: If you could undo one mistake you have made in life, what would it be, and why would you undo it? The results showed that participants expected to prefer the shallow conversation, but they actually preferred the deeper one. They felt closer to their deep conversation partner than their shallow conversation partner, and the deep conversations were a lot less awkward than participants thought they would be. When we play it safe, we might be missing out on opportunities for meaningful social connection. Natalie Kerr and Jaime Kurtz This article originally appeared in Next Big Idea Club magazine and is reprinted with permission.
Category:
E-Commerce
In a world where innovation drives success, the most valuable asset a company can secure is exceptional people. Great talent is the common denominator across all successful companies. This is particularly true in the investment industry, and always true for hedge funds. Each hedge fund is essentially a team of people betting that they have the smarts to understand the world better than any of their competitors. When aiming to consistently beat the markets, you need to be the best in the world at what you do. Success is developing an understanding and ultimately an edge that others havent cracked yet. Thats the gamezero-sum, and supercompetitive. As the deputy chief investment officer of a leading hedge fund, I am lucky to see firsthand what it takes to have any chance of being the best. We need everyone on our team to be exceptionally bright, to relentlessly challenge any consensus around them, and to be truly obsessed about what they doall while working in an intense culture of collaboration where everyone challenges each other and seeks to constantly improve. Finding talent like that is extremely tough. Bridgewater has prided itself for decades on attracting the best, but doing so requires evolution in our approach, and looking beyond traditional avenues. Outside the boxand sometimes the classroom Its common for elite companies to look to the most prestigious schools as their primary way of recruiting incoming investment classes. Bridgewater leverages this route, too, as such universities are often the home to many brilliant students. But the fact is, most of the worlds best talent is elsewhere. Many of the most brilliant and innovative thinkers come from diverse backgrounds and educational paths. My own experiences have fueled my commitment to expanding our recruiting horizons. I myself am a college dropout. And before making that choice, I remember how troubled I was by the clear disparities of opportunity I saw around me, when growing up in central Illinois. I would hear of students elsewhere having high school teachers with PhDs and receiving expensive elite standardized test tutoring. By the time I got to high school, I had become an avid participant in online communities developed to help other students, and even published an extensive SAT guide online, which helped freely spread best practices to hundreds of thousands of students across the world. Students like me. The democratization enabled by the internet not only allows for students to access otherwise unattainable resources, but it also opens up key opportunities for companies to identify the best talent. While the possibilities here are endless, Bridgewater has already begun to source candidates through Metaculus, a web-based forecasting platform. With Metaculus, we run prediction competitions, where participants leverage their abilities and grit to make logical, thoughtful predictions about what will happen in the future. This allows us to seamlessly leverage technology to tap into a vast pool of talent that extends far beyond conventional recruiting channels, allowing us to discover talent anywhere in the world. This is a deeply meritocratic approach. Last year, in our first contest, we had participation from students at over 140 schools as well as many noncampus candidates, many of whom Bridgewater had never reached with recruitment efforts before. Fifteen hundred people joined the contest,including 700undergraduate students from across the U.S. While Yale came in 134th place and Harvard finished 138th, Northwestern University topped the standings. But the overall winner was an undergraduate from Grinnell College, a private liberal arts college in Iowa. In addition to the Grinnell student, we interviewed dozens of candidates and ultimately made three internship offers from schools we have not historically recruited from. I personally interviewed those three candidates and can confidently say they were among the most exciting, promising candidates Ive ever met. This competition is only one example of the many ways that new recruitment methods through innovative technologies will level the playing field and highlight those who might otherwise be overlooked. To be best positioned moving forward, leading global companies must consider those who can raise the best ideas, regardless of the background that informs them.
Category:
E-Commerce
At President Donald Trumps inauguration on Monday, Detroit pastor Lorenzo Sewell took the stage to pray for the incoming administration, peppering his remarks with ham-fisted allusions to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.s I Have a Dream speech from some six decades earlier. That same day, Sewella longtime Trump booster who spoke at the Republican National Convention and hosted the candidate at his church in Junetook the logical next step in his quest for conservative influencer superstardom: launch a meme coin and watch rubes throw their hard-earned money at it. I need you to do me a favor right now. I need you to go buy the official Lorenzo Sewell coin, he said in a video posted on X, promising to never sell on the community but rather just earn fees as our token continues to flourish. After reaching a peak market value of $4.5 million, $LORENZOprepare to be shockedlost 93% of its value in a matter of hours, leaving some traders with five- and six-figure losses. I am guessing Sewells congregants will not be hearing a sermon on the cleansing of the Temple anytime soon. Sewell, though, is only doing what everyone in Trumps orbit, including Trump himself, is doing right now: cashing in as quickly and as often as possible. Days before taking the oath of office, Trump launched his own cryptocurrency meme coin, inviting prospective buyers to join his very special Trump Community and urging them to Have Fun! His eponymous meme coin, $TRUMP, should not be confused with $MELANIA, a separate meme coin launched around the same time by his wife, shortly before she once again became first lady of the United States. The terms and conditions onI swear I am not making this upgettrumpmemes.com warn prospective $TRUMP buyers that they could incur substantial losses, and require anyone who buys to first agree to waive their rights to a jury trial or to participate in any hypothetical future class-action lawsuit, which are generally not signs that you are dealing with blue-chip investment opportunities. When asked by reporters, Trump did not do much to inspire additional confidence in the venture: I dont know much about it, other than I launched it, he said, but noted he did understand that it had been very successful. For now, he is right, and especially compared to $LORENZO: At the time of the inauguration, $TRUMP was the worlds third-largest meme coin, behind only Dogecoin and Shina Ibu. As of Thursday afternoon, The Wall Street Journal estimated the $TRUMP market cap at $7 billion and valued Trumps stake at $28 billion, which would be between three and four times his estimated pre-meme coin net worth all by itself. The ethical challenges of a chief executive with the power to shape cryptocurrency policy engaging in a little light eponymous cryptocurrency profiteering do not require a detailed explanation. But this episode is a mere preview of an administration that will function as a glorified cash cube, where everyone in the White House (and everyone who is sufficiently adjacent to it) will have a chance to grab as much as they can hold before the clock runs out. The political dynamics of Trumps second term are unlike anything that anyone alive has experienced: a term-limited president who is interested in ruling but not governing, who ran for office more or less to avoid the possibility of prison time, and whose position on any given issue depends largely on whichever well-dressed man with a firm handshake pitched him last. Unlike most presidents, Trump does not care about setting up his party for future success, because he has never cared about the GOP beyond its utility to his political ambitions. Nor does he care about using a second term to secure his legacy, because in his mind, exacting electoral revenge on Joe Biden was the only thing he needed to do to accomplish that task. For the next four years, then, all Trump really wants is to bask in the glow of winning an election that the haters insisted he would lose, and enjoy the spoils of victory that come with the office. In previous decades, these perks would have consisted largely of lengthier-than-usual stays at Camp David during the high season. In 2025, they include the right to slap your name (and your wifes name) across a digital token and sell it to anyone who will pay for it. The heads of some of the worlds largest and most powerful corporations, too, realize that the regulatory environment might never be as friendly as it is right now, when a president who is as unapologetically profit-driven as they are is calling the shots. Luminaries of the artificial intelligence industry, who understand that their companies will need staggering amounts of cash to have any hope of delivering on their lofty promises, are flocking to Trump, eager to exploit his disinterest in regulating an industry that needs it badly. Billionaires like Metas Mark Zuckerberg, Amazons Jeff Bezos, and Googles Sundar Pichai similarly understand that showing up in person to kiss the ring is both the cheapest and surest way to protect their bloated monopolies from federal oversight. The quarter-billion that Elon Musk spent to back Trumps reelection campaign is pennies on the dollar next to the value of the government contracts for which his companies now enjoy the inside track. A month ago, TikTok was facing a ban in the U.S.; now that Trump is in power, a few well-placed compliments were enough to keep the lights on and the bottom line intact, for the moment. No industry is going as hard in Washington as the crypto industry, which threw a star-studded celebratory ball the night before Trumps inauguration, complete with performances from Snoop Dogg, Rick Ross, and Soulja Boy. David Sacks, a member of the Silicon Valley reactionary clique, who Trump recently named as his AI and crypto czar, told cheering attendees that Washingtons reign of terror against crypto had at last come to a close. Yes, some industry leaders have criticized Trump for his $TRUMP stunt, but on the whole they have little to complain about: At the very least, a president who is willing to launch his own meme coin right before moving into the White House is unlikely to be a thorn in te side of the crypto industry anytime soon. The cashing-in presidency slows down onlyand even then, only slightlywhen one persons big score threatens that of another. On Tuesday, Trump announced a new AI joint venture, Stargate, billed as a collaboration among OpenAI, SoftBank, and Oracle that would invest up to half a trillion dollars in OpenAIs work. (Like many things for which Trump takes credit, Stargate was in the works months before his press conference, and since the money is coming from the private sector, his administration does not have to fund it.) But just hours after Trump declared Stargate a resounding declaration of confidence in Americas potential, Musk, who has been feuding with Altman since breaking with OpenAI in 2018and whose xAI product is a rival to OpenAIs ChatGPTpublicly undercut Trumps grand pronouncements. They dont actually have the money, Musk wrote on X. I have that on good authority. As it turns out, Musks purportedly close relationship with the president started fraying the moment he perceived that as enthusiastically as he might be cashing in these days, one of his Silicon Valley rivals was cashing in even harder. The other tech oligarchs with front-row inauguration seats will probably have their loyalties tested soon, too. Zuckerberg, whose company lobbied aggressively for the TikTok ban and stands to gain billions in ad dollars from its enforcement, cannot be happy about Trumps decision to stay the apps execution; Google and Pichai, whose YouTube Shorts product aspires to compete with TikTok, also must have felt the sting of defeat. Earlier this week, Trump expressed interest in the idea of Musk or Oracles Larry Ellison saving TikTok by acquiring the platform from ByteDance. The more Trump picks winners and losers among those competing for his favor, the less valuable these alliances of convenience with the White House will be. Trump is often described as a grifter, or a con man, or some variation thereof, which is in my view a fair characterization of a man who is unable to cite his favorite Bible verses but nevertheless sells officially licensed Trump Bibles for $59.99 and autographed copies for $1,000, a price that somehow does not include shipping. The difference between his first administration and this one is that this time, many of the business leaders who previously distanced themselves from Trump have figured out that ingratiating themselves is the most lucrative path of least resistance in recent memory. When the president is chasing a payday this hard, no one has to be shy about following his lead.
Category:
E-Commerce
Sites : [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] next »