Category: Hot Topics

Introducing the ‘Great Reset,’ world leaders’ radical plan to transform the economy | TheHill

digigod

https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/504499-introducing-the-great-reset-world-leaders-radical-plan-to

Introducing the ‘Great Reset,’ world leaders’ radical plan to transform the economy

For decades, progressives have attempted to use climate change to justify liberal policy changes. But their latest attempt – a new proposal called the “Great Reset” – is the most ambitious and radical plan the world has seen in more than a generation.

At a virtual meeting earlier in June hosted by the World Economic Forum, some of the planet’s most powerful business leaders, government officials and activists announced a proposal to “reset” the global economy. Instead of traditional capitalism, the high-profile group said the world should adopt more socialistic policies, such as wealth taxes, additional regulations and massive Green New Deal-like government programs. 

“Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed,” wrote Klaus Schwab, the founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum, in an article published on WEF’s website. “In short, we need a ‘Great Reset’ of capitalism.” 

Schwab also said that “all aspects of our societies and economies” must be “revamped,” “from education to social contracts and working conditions.” 

Joining Schwab at the WEF event was Prince Charles, one of the primary proponents of the Great Reset; Gina Gopinath, the chief economist at the International Monetary Fund; António Guterres, the secretary-general of the United Nations; and CEOs and presidents of major international corporations, such as Microsoft and BP. 

Activists from groups such as Greenpeace International and a variety of academics also attended the event or have expressed their support for the Great Reset. 

Although many details about the Great Reset won’t be rolled out until the World Economic Forum meets in Davos in January 2021, the general principles of the plan are clear: The world needs massive new government programs and far-reaching policies comparable to those offered by American socialists such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) in their Green New Deal plan.

Or, put another way, we need a form of socialism — a word the World Economic Forum has deliberately avoided using, all while calling for countless socialist and progressive plans.

“We need to design policies to align with investment in people and the environment,” said the general secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation, Sharan Burrow. “But above all, the longer-term perspective is about rebalancing economies.”

One of the main themes of the June meeting was that the coronavirus pandemic has created an important “opportunity” for many of the World Economic Forum’s members to enact their radical transformation of capitalism, which they acknowledged would likely not have been made possible without the pandemic.

“We have a golden opportunity to seize something good from this crisis — its unprecedented shockwaves may well make people more receptive to big visions of change,” said Prince Charles at the meeting, adding later, “It is an opportunity we have never had before and may never have again.”

You might be wondering how these leaders plan to convince the world to completely alter its economy over the long run, since the COVID-19 pandemic most assuredly won’t remain a crisis forever. The answer is that they’ve already identified another “crisis” that will require expansive government intervention: Climate change.

“The threat of climate change has been more gradual [than COVID-19]—but its devastating reality for many people and their livelihoods around the world, and its ever greater potential to disrupt, surpasses even that of Covid-19,” Prince Charles said.

Of course, these government officials, activists and influencers can’t impose a systemic change of this size on their own. Which is why they have already started to activate vast networks of left-wing activists from around the world, who will throughout 2021 demand changes in line with the Great Reset.

According to the World Economic Forum, its 2021 Davos summit will include thousands of members of the Global Shapers Community, youth activists located in 400 cities across the planet. 

The Global Shapers program was involved in the widespread “climate strikes” of 2019, and more than 1,300 have already been trained by the Climate Reality Project, the highly influential, well-funded climate activist organization run by former Vice President Al Gore, who serves on the World Economic Forum’s Board of Trustees.

For those of us who support free markets, the Great Reset is nothing short of terrifying. Our current crony capitalist system has many flaws, to be sure, but granting more power to the government agents who created that crony system and eroding property rights is not the best way forward. America is the world’s most powerful, prosperous nation precisely because of the very market principles the Great Reset supporters loathe, not in spite of them. 

Making matters worse, the left has already proven throughout the COVID-19 pandemic that it can radically transform political realities in the midst of a crisis, so it’s not hard to see how the Great Reset could eventually come to fruition.

Can you imagine George W. Bush or Bill Clinton printing trillions of dollars and mailing it to millions of people who didn’t lose their jobs? This would have been unthinkable just a couple of decades ago. Today, this policy garners bipartisan support. 

Prince Charles was right: The present pandemic is a “golden opportunity” for radical change. And if Al Gore, Prince Charles and the rest of the World Economic Forum can convince enough people that attempting to stop climate change is also worth dramatically pushing humanity toward greater government control, then radical – and catastrophic – change is exactly what we’re going to get.

Justin Haskins (Jhaskins@heartland.org) is the editorial director of the Heartland Institute. Follow him on Twitter @JustinTHaskins.

COVID-19: Is it right to talk about a second wave? | World Economic Forum

digigod

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/coronavirus-covid19-second-wave-infections/

An expert explains: Why it’s wrong to talk about a second wave of COVID-19

  • As lockdown eases, there is growing level concern about a potential ‘second wave’ of infections.
  • Jeremy Rossman, an expert in virology at the University of Kent, explains that, unlike influenza, there’s no evidence of a seasonality effect with COVID-19.
  • We’re not yet between waves as the virus is still being transmitted – but our actions can help us keep it at bay.

Lockdown is easing. People are returning to work and shops are lifting their shutters. But we don’t have a vaccine and we’re a long way from achieving herd immunity – so this new-found freedom is tainted with fear: fear of a second wave of infections.

Indeed, people are already talking about a “second wave” hitting China and Iran. But the concept of a second wave is flawed and creates dangerous misconceptions about the pandemic.

The idea of a second wave stems from the flawed comparison with the seasonality of the flu virus.

Early in the pandemic, many experts discussed the similarities between SARS-CoV-2 and influenza virus. They are both viruses that cause respiratory infections – mostly mild. Influenza is also the cause of most recent previous pandemics. From these similarities, it was tempting to assume that COVID-19 would behave similarly to a flu pandemic. Yet these are very different viruses with very different behaviour.

COVID-19 has a far greater fatality rate compared with the flu, along with a much higher rate of hospitalisations and severe infection. Also, influenza is a seasonal virus. Every year we see cases of the flu begin in early autumn, increase over the winter and then wind down as we approach summer. This repeats yearly, and so if a new strain of flu emerges we would probably have a first wave of infections during winter-spring, then the virus would come back in a second wave in autumn-winter the following year.

The most severe pandemic ever recorded was the so-called Spanish flu pandemic. During this pandemic, the virus infected the northern hemisphere during the spring of 1918, died down some during the summer of 1918 and then came back in greater force in the autumn of 1918. It is tempting to speculate that COVID-19 will decline or disappear during the summer, only to reappear as the weather gets colder. But we don’t know if COVID-19 is a seasonal virus.

Emergency hospital during the 1918 flu epidemic, Camp Funston, Kansas.

Image: Otis Historical Archives/Wikimedia Commons

The flu has lower transmission in the summer because the combination of higher humidity, increased UV light and people spending less time inside, close to each other. Some of these factors might also affect COVID-19, but we really don’t know to what extent.

Even if seasonal factors affect COVID-19 transmission, the spread of a new virus through a population that has no immunity will overwhelm any influence of seasonal factors. The 2009 swine flu pandemic virus and the 1918 pandemic virus were new viruses that people had no immunity to. As a result, the virus did not go away in the summer, though transmission was somewhat reduced. So we cannot expect that COVID-19 will behave as a seasonal virus and diminish over the summer only to return with a second wave in the autumn.

The first wave hasn’t ended

Aside from seasonality, there is another reason the idea of a second wave is flawed. The concept of a second wave implies that it is something inevitable, something intrinsic to how the virus behaves. It goes away for a bit, then comes back with a vengeance. But this idea fails to take into account the importance of ongoing preventative actions and portrays us as helpless and at the whim of this pathogen.

We are not between waves. We have new cases in the UK every day. We are in an ebb and flow of COVID-19 transmission that is continually affected by our precautionary actions.

Letting up on precautions will lead to an increase in cases. This is the new normal and what to expect until we have an effective vaccine with significant population uptake. Until then we have to depend on our actions to keep cases low – both now and in autumn.

Cross-sectional model of a coronavirus.

Image: scientificanimations.com/Wikimedia Commons

The concept of a second wave portrays the pandemic as a force of nature that is beyond our control. But we have evidence from many countries that a strong public health system (consisting of widespread testing, contact tracing, isolation and health support) combined with public participation in safe behaviour (wearing face coverings, keeping physical distance, hand washing) is highly effective at minimising COVID-19 transmission.

We are not at the mercy of the virus, now or in the future. This is hopeful news, but it puts the burden of responsibility on all of us. We must keep fighting, but in doing so we should not fear an inevitable second wave.

Blaming coronavirus, T-Mobile is abandoning merger promises – Los Angeles Times…I highlighted what is imp. . . .

digigod

Blaming coronavirus, T-Mobile is abandoning merger promises – Los Angeles Times…I highlighted what is imp. . . .

 

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-06-26/tmobile-merger-promises

Column: With its Sprint merger in the bag, T-Mobile is already backing away from its promises

By Michael HiltzikBusiness Columnist 

The wireless companies T-Mobile and Sprint promised regulators essentially that nirvana awaited society if they could only win approval of their $31-billion merger deal.

Some of the promises have been nebulous: “T-Mobile and Sprint are coming together to build the best wireless company around,” the “new” T-Mobile says.

Some have been more specific but not immediately relevant: T-Mobile says that over the next six years it will build out a higher-capacity faster 5G, or fifth generation, wireless network (though you’ll need a 5G phone to use it).

We try to create conditions to make sure that consumers are not being left behind in the rush for the companies to satisfy their shareholders. Then they get what they want and try to change the rules.

Christine Mailloux, Turn

And some were imposed by regulators, including maintaining jobs and making network improvements.

T-Mobile and Sprint completed their merger April 1. And now — no surprise to the deal’s opponents — the merged company is already reneging on some of these conditions.

Most recently T-Mobile has moved to overturn several conditions imposed by the California Public Utilities Commission, including at least one the company specifically promised California Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra in settling Becerra’s lawsuit to block the merger.

In a June 23 motion, T-Mobile is asking for two extra years to roll out high-speed 5G service across California. It’s also trying to nullify a PUC order that it add at least 1,000 new jobs in California payroll within three years, over and above the combined headcount of Sprint and T-Mobile when the merger closed.

The company says that it “stands by all of its commitments” to state and federal regulators. But it also stands by its position that the PUC has “no legal authority to require approval for a wireless merger” — and especially no authority to dictate its employment levels, a position with which the commission, obviously, disagrees.

“The PUC has broad authority over T-Mobile and it should continue to hold the company accountable,” says Ana Maria Johnson, program manager for communications policy at the Public Advocates Office, an independent body within the PUC charged with protecting utility customers’ interests.

“The company’s continuing actions to undermine that oversight just shows that it doesn’t have the public interest in mind,” Johnson adds. The public interest, she says, plainly includes issues such as employment.

T-Mobile also is trying out a position that has already become common in corporate America and is destined to become more so: It implies it needs to back away from its promises because of the coronavirus.

(We earlier reported on the effort by the giant Sutter Health hospital chain to renege on terms of an antitrust settlement it reached in December with Becerra.)

To consumer advocates, this all comes out of the big company merger playbook.

“We try to create conditions to make sure that consumers are not being left behind in the rush for the companies to satisfy their shareholders,” says Christine Mailloux, who participated in the PUC review of the merger as an attorney for the consumer organization Turn. “Then they get what they want and try to change the rules. That’s what’s happening here.”

Mega-mergers are invariably described by their promoters as heralds of a new age for customers.

In 2011, for instance, what was then the biggest merger in the information and entertainment sectors — Comcast’s $30-billion takeover of NBCUniversal — was pitched as bringing such benefits to the public as improved cable TV and internet technology, more innovative TV programming and lower prices.

Similar claims have been made for all the media mega-mergers of the last two decades, involving Walt Disney Co., ABC, Viacom, CBS, Time, Warner Bros., CNN and AOL, among other companies. None of these promises has come about. Yet the deals have rolled across the landscape like juggernauts.

The marriage of T-Mobile and Sprint was crucial for the future of wireless communications in the U.S. because it involved reducing the number of major wireless carriers from four to three: Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile.

The deal was bound to do “irreparable damage to competition in the wireless market and the low-income customer markets,” the Public Advocates Office warned in its opposition brief in January 2019. That would mean higher prices for customers and an “absence of specific, measurable, and verifiable benefits attributable to the merger.”

The merger seemed to proceed along a well-greased path. The Department of Justice and Federal Communications Commission both approved the deal in 2019, albeit with modest conditions including the sale of Sprint’s prepaid wireless business — chiefly Boost Mobile — to Dish Network.

A lawsuit to block the merger filed last June by the District of Columbia and 13 states, including California and New York, was thrown out by U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero of New York in February.

Marrero seemed wearied and exasperated by the burden of choosing between “competing crystal balls” foretelling what would happen if the merger were to go through — the companies predicting a boon for consumers, the opponents predicting higher prices and crummier service.

In his decision, he accepted T-Mobile at its own level of self-esteem. He labeled the company an “undeniably successful … maverick that has spurred the two largest players in its industry [that is, Verizon and AT&T] to make numerous pro-consumer changes,” and waved the deal through.

That left California to carry the regulatory ball. Becerra approved the deal March 11 as part of a settlement of the state’s lawsuit to which T-Mobile agreed.

Yet the merger raised regulatory issues in California the moment it was completed April 1. That’s because the PUC hadn’t yet given its approval to merge the companies’ California operations.

Commissioner Clifford Rechtschaffen, who oversaw the PUC’s consideration of the merger, ordered the companies on April 1 not to do so until the PUC could issue its final decision. They bulldozed ahead with the national merger. T-Mobile says it agreed to not integrate T-Mobile and Sprint operations in California pending the PUC decision, which ultimately came April 16.

“We have the utmost respect for the CPUC,” T-Mobile spokeswoman Tara Darrow told me by email. But actions speak louder than words, and this action hardly bodes well for the “new” T-Mobile’s willingness to comply with any of its legal obligations.

The company says “we are seeking changes in the CPUC conditions to align them with our commitments.” A strong regulator, however, would instruct a company to align its commitments to the regulator’s conditions, not the other way around.

Let’s take a look at the PUC’s conditions, and the company’s reaction to them.

Start with the requirement that T-Mobile increase its net full-time employment in California by 1,000 jobs within three years of the merger closing. That mandate “exceeds the PUC’s authority,” Darrow said.

In any event, the company says in its motion that the mandate is “particularly burdensome and unjustified in light of the current COVID-19 crisis.” It doesn’t say why that would be so, other than mentioning “the major consequences” the crisis has had on the economy thus far and could have on T-Mobile in the future.

The company also says it stands by its commitment to be “jobs positive” in California, meaning it will maintain employment at least at the combined pre-merger levels.

There are a couple of problems with this position. One is that it made the same 1,000-job promise to Becerra — specifically, that it would open a customer service center in Kingsburg, a Fresno suburb, with 1,000 new jobs — in the lawsuit settlement it entered into voluntarily. (T-Mobile maintains the Kingsburg commitment is separate from the pledge to maintain employment at least at pre-merger levels.)

Second, in PUC testimony in January 2019, then-T-Mobile COO G. Michael Sievert, now the CEO of the merged company, truculently insisted that the company was committed to increased hiring.

Responding to a Communications Workers of America union warning that T-Mobile would try to cut staff after the merger, he said “the CWA is just dead wrong” and its claim “defies credulity.” He pointed to internal projections that employment would be 11,060 higher by 2024. “The merger will … be job positive on Day One,” he said.

As it happens, on June 16 T-Mobile told hundreds of Sprint employees that they would be losing their jobs in August.

The second major change T-Mobile is seeking from the PUC involves the commission’s mandate that it provide 5G network speeds of 300 megabits per second to 93% of the California population by year-end 2024.

This condition reflected T-Mobile’s own projection of the pace of the rollout, Mailloux says. But T-Mobile now claims it didn’t mean 2024 — it just used that date as a “proxy” to signify a point six years after the merger closed — and since the merger closed in 2020, the condition should now read “2026.” The company says meeting the earlier deadline isn’t “feasible.”

Is that so? Mailloux recalls that company officials were “crowing — crowing — about how this merger would enable them to build a stronger, faster, better network in a blazing time frame. Now, after they get their approval, they’re saying, that’s not what we meant.”

In flouting the PUC’s authority, T-Mobile may be playing the fait accompli card that has helped many other merged companies suffer only slap-on-the-wrist penalties for breaking pre-approval conditions. Its merger is sealed; and it‘s unlikely that any regulator has the power or the gumption to force it to be unwound, no matter how many commitments the company breaches.

Indeed, one point that Turn, the Public Advocate and other consumer groups have made is that the PUC’s enforcement options are essentially toothless. Practically speaking, the most the commission can do is levy financial penalties for breaches.

The consumer groups noted in a filing in May that the PUC’s approval of the deal “fails to define the penalties or to create a citation program that will impose penalties in proportion to the hundreds of millions of dollars at stake in this merger.”

They asked for a further hearing to shore up the enforcement mechanism and strengthen the PUC conditions, but T-Mobile has opposed the motion and the PUC hasn’t ruled on it.

Californians, therefore, will have to rely on the Public Utilities Commission showing sufficient spine to hold T-Mobile to its conditions and slap it hard in the pocketbook for any breach. It can start with fining the company for flouting its own order to delay the merger.

T-Mobile showed itself to be a scofflaw on Day One. Will that be the last time? Don’t bet on it.

 

Introducing the ‘Great Reset,’ world leaders’ radical plan to transform the economy

digigod

https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/504499-introducing-the-great-reset-world-leaders-radical-plan-to

Introducing the ‘Great Reset,’ world leaders’ radical plan to transform the economy

For decades, progressives have attempted to use climate change to justify liberal policy changes. But their latest attempt – a new proposal called the “Great Reset” – is the most ambitious and radical plan the world has seen in more than a generation.

At a virtual meeting earlier in June hosted by the World Economic Forum, some of the planet’s most powerful business leaders, government officials and activists announced a proposal to “reset” the global economy. Instead of traditional capitalism, the high-profile group said the world should adopt more socialistic policies, such as wealth taxes, additional regulations and massive Green New Deal-like government programs. 

“Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed,” wrote Klaus Schwab, the founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum, in an article published on WEF’s website. “In short, we need a ‘Great Reset’ of capitalism.” 

Schwab also said that “all aspects of our societies and economies” must be “revamped,” “from education to social contracts and working conditions.” 

Joining Schwab at the WEF event was Prince Charles, one of the primary proponents of the Great Reset; Gina Gopinath, the chief economist at the International Monetary Fund; António Guterres, the secretary-general of the United Nations; and CEOs and presidents of major international corporations, such as Microsoft and BP. 

Activists from groups such as Greenpeace International and a variety of academics also attended the event or have expressed their support for the Great Reset. 

Although many details about the Great Reset won’t be rolled out until the World Economic Forum meets in Davos in January 2021, the general principles of the plan are clear: The world needs massive new government programs and far-reaching policies comparable to those offered by American socialists such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) in their Green New Deal plan.

Or, put another way, we need a form of socialism — a word the World Economic Forum has deliberately avoided using, all while calling for countless socialist and progressive plans.

“We need to design policies to align with investment in people and the environment,” said the general secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation, Sharan Burrow. “But above all, the longer-term perspective is about rebalancing economies.”

One of the main themes of the June meeting was that the coronavirus pandemic has created an important “opportunity” for many of the World Economic Forum’s members to enact their radical transformation of capitalism, which they acknowledged would likely not have been made possible without the pandemic.

“We have a golden opportunity to seize something good from this crisis — its unprecedented shockwaves may well make people more receptive to big visions of change,” said Prince Charles at the meeting, adding later, “It is an opportunity we have never had before and may never have again.”

You might be wondering how these leaders plan to convince the world to completely alter its economy over the long run, since the COVID-19 pandemic most assuredly won’t remain a crisis forever. The answer is that they’ve already identified another “crisis” that will require expansive government intervention: Climate change.

“The threat of climate change has been more gradual [than COVID-19]—but its devastating reality for many people and their livelihoods around the world, and its ever greater potential to disrupt, surpasses even that of Covid-19,” Prince Charles said.

Of course, these government officials, activists and influencers can’t impose a systemic change of this size on their own. Which is why they have already started to activate vast networks of left-wing activists from around the world, who will throughout 2021 demand changes in line with the Great Reset.

According to the World Economic Forum, its 2021 Davos summit will include thousands of members of the Global Shapers Community, youth activists located in 400 cities across the planet. 

The Global Shapers program was involved in the widespread “climate strikes” of 2019, and more than 1,300 have already been trained by the Climate Reality Project, the highly influential, well-funded climate activist organization run by former Vice President Al Gore, who serves on the World Economic Forum’s Board of Trustees.

For those of us who support free markets, the Great Reset is nothing short of terrifying. Our current crony capitalist system has many flaws, to be sure, but granting more power to the government agents who created that crony system and eroding property rights is not the best way forward. America is the world’s most powerful, prosperous nation precisely because of the very market principles the Great Reset supporters loathe, not in spite of them. 

Making matters worse, the left has already proven throughout the COVID-19 pandemic that it can radically transform political realities in the midst of a crisis, so it’s not hard to see how the Great Reset could eventually come to fruition.

Can you imagine George W. Bush or Bill Clinton printing trillions of dollars and mailing it to millions of people who didn’t lose their jobs? This would have been unthinkable just a couple of decades ago. Today, this policy garners bipartisan support. 

Prince Charles was right: The present pandemic is a “golden opportunity” for radical change. And if Al Gore, Prince Charles and the rest of the World Economic Forum can convince enough people that attempting to stop climate change is also worth dramatically pushing humanity toward greater government control, then radical – and catastrophic – change is exactly what we’re going to get.

Justin Haskins (Jhaskins@heartland.org) is the editorial director of the Heartland Institute. Follow him on Twitter @JustinTHaskins.

The Great Reset

digigod

https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2020/06/03/sp060320-remarks-to-world-economic-forum-the-great-reset

The Great Reset

Remarks to World Economic Forum
Kristalina Georgieva, Managing Director, IMF

June 3, 2020

My thanks to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and to Professor Schwab for bringing us together.

Now is the time to think of what history would say about this crisis. And now is the time for all of us to define our own role. 

Will historians look back and say this was the moment of a Great Reversal? Today, we see very worrying signs.

One hundred and seventy countries are going to finish this year with a smaller economy than at the start of the year, and we already project that there will be more debt, bigger deficits, and more unemployment. And there is a very high risk of more inequality and more poverty. 

Unless we act.

So, what would it take for historians to look back at this crisis as the moment of a Great Reset?

From the perspective of the IMF, we have seen a massive injection of fiscal stimulus to help countries deal with this crisis, and to shift gears for growth to return. It is of paramount importance that this growth should lead to a greener, smarter, fairer world in the future. 

It is possible to do this. Provided that we concentrate on the key elements of a recovery—and act now. We don’t need to wait.

At the IMF, we see some tremendous opportunities.

First, let me first talk about green growth.

Governments can put in place public investments—and incentives for private investments—that support low-carbon and climate-resilient growth.

Many of these investments can lead to job-rich recovery—think of planting mangroves, land restoration, reforestation or insulating buildings. Think of the key sectors for reducing carbon intensity where both the public and private sector can invest.

I am particularly keen to take advantage of the low oil prices we see today, to eliminate harmful subsidies and introduce a carbon price that would work as an incentive for future investments. 

Second, let me talk about smarter growth. We know the digital economy is the big winner of this crisis. But we must not allow the digital divide to widen so that some countries and communities fall further behind. This would bring more pain than gain in the future.

So, it is critical that institutions like the IMF support investments that will shrink the digital divide—working in partnership with the World Bank and others.

We also need to think carefully about how to make sure the jump in growth and profitability in the digital sector leads to benefits that are shared across our societies.

And that takes me to my third point—fairer growth.

We know that—if left to its own devices—this pandemic is going to deepen inequality. That has happened in prior pandemics.

We can avoid this if we concentrate on investing in people—in the social fabric of our societies, in access to opportunities, in education for all, and in the expansion of social programs so we take care of the most vulnerable people. Then we can have a world that is better for everyone. 

I want to conclude with an example from the past. William Beveridge, in the midst of the Second World War, put forward his famous report in 1942 in which he projected how UK should address what he called the ‘five giant evils.’ That famous ‘Beveridge Report’ report led to a better country after the war—including the creation of the National Health Service that is saving so many lives today in the UK. 

And my institution, the IMF, was created at this time as well—at the Bretton Woods Conference. 

So, now is the moment to step up—and use all the strength we have—to turn the page. In the case of the IMF we have a one trillion-dollar financial capacity and tremendous engagement on the policy side.

This is the moment to decide that history will look back on this as the Great Reset, not the Great Reversal. 

And I want to say—loud and clear—the best memorial we can build to those who have lost their lives in the pandemic is to build a world that is greener, smarter and fairer.

Thank you.

IMF Communications Department
MEDIA RELATIONS

PRESS OFFICER:

Phone: +1 202 623-7100Email: MEDIA@IMF.org

@IMFSpokesperson

Californians must wear face masks in public under coronavirus order issued by Newsom

digigod

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-06-18/california-mandatory-face-masks-statewide-order-coronavirus-gavin-newsom

They cover the nose and mouth causing people to breath back in the carbon dioxide (an exhaled toxin) that should not be trapped in our masks to breath back in.

Also oxygen intake is reduced when wearing the masks. People have been passing out and not feeling well and yet we are being threatened the we will make someone else sick from covid that does NOT even exist as a live virus the passes from one person to another. The Owl of Moloch!!!

Ex-SCE&G executive to plead guilty for defrauding customers over failed $9B nuclear project

digigod

https://www.postandcourier.com/business/ex-sce-g-executive-to-plead-guilty-for-defrauding-customers-over-failed-9b-nuclear-project/article_fb0cd356-a915-11ea-a080-b715a27f4457.html

The former chief operating officer of South Carolina Electric and Gas has agreed to plead guilty to defrauding utility customers who paid billions of dollars in high power bills for a nuclear power plant that was never completed.

And more charges are coming after a three-year investigation by the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s Office Of South Carolina, prosecutors made clear in filings Monday.

Steve Byrne, SCE&G’s second-in-command who oversaw the $9 billion V.C. Summer Nuclear Station expansion project before its sudden collapse in July 2017, is pleading guilty to wire and mail fraud, according to court filings.

The filings echo accusations that Byrne and other executives hid damaging information and documents about the project’s flaws from investors and the public even as customers’ electric rates soared to pay for it.

The charge against Byrne is the first to emerge out of the federal criminal investigation that began shortly after construction on the twin reactors in Fairfield County north of Columbia was canceled by SCE&G and its partner, Santee Cooper.

But prosecutors indicated it won’t be the last.

“The United States anticipates filing additional criminal charges against other members of the conspiracy,” prosecutors wrote in Monday’s filing. “The criminal investigation is ongoing.”

An effort to reach Byrne’s attorney was unsuccessful Monday.

In a written statement, U.S. Attorney Peter McCoy declined to comment further on Byrne’s case.

“However,” he wrote, “the U.S. Attorney’s Office will continue to protect the citizens of South Carolina from all crimes, be they violent or economic.”

The massive V.C. Summer venture was supposed to usher in a renaissance of carbon-free nuclear power amid predictions of greater energy demand in South Carolina. Company leaders in 2007 persuaded S.C. lawmakers to rewrite the regulatory rulebook so they could embark on the project with limited state oversight, win approval for rate hikes as needed and charge customers upfront for the plant, ostensibly saving them money in the long run.

The project’s abandonment set off one of the largest economic crises in the history of the state. SCE&G’s 731,000 electric customers had already paid nearly $2 billion in the form of higher monthly power bills and will be charged about $2.3 billion more to pay off the project’s debt over the next two decades.

More than 5,000 construction workers were immediately fired. SCE&G’s reputation was tarnished as the stock price of its parent company, SCANA Corp., plummeted.

That made the utility — one of South Carolina’s largest homegrown companies — a takeover target. SCANA was bought by Virginia power giant Dominion Energy in 2019. The new owner lowered SCE&G customers’ nuclear-bloated power bills — while still planning to charge customers $2.3 billion more for the project — and renamed the utility Dominion Energy South Carolina.

Sign up for our new business newsletter

We’re starting a weekly newsletter about the business stories that are shaping Charleston and South Carolina. Get ahead with us – it’s free.

Through a class-action lawsuit settled by Dominion, ratepayers will be refunded up to $146 million, some of which was sent to customers in checks last fall. But that’s a pittance of what they will pay for V.C. Summer.

SCE&G’s customers and investors have long wondered when the people in charge would be held accountable.

Byrne, along with former CEOs Kevin Marsh and Jimmy Addison, have been widely criticized for allegedly hiding vital information about the project’s flaws from the public, state utility regulators and the corporation’s investors.

For years, the massive nuclear project was marred by incomplete schedules and designs, supply chain problems, construction setbacks and mismanagement. Those problems led to huge delays and skyrocketing costs, factors that threatened the possibility it could ever be completed.

But the problems that plagued construction were hidden from public view for years.

That was until the reactors were cancelled and journalists, attorneys, lawmakers, regulators and law enforcement officials began to review internal emails, audits and other documents from the project. 

The trove of information included an audit by Bechtel Corp., one of the world’s largest construction and engineering firms, that detailed serious problems at the site and called into question the project’s future.

Yet in regulatory hearings, press conferences and investor calls, Byrne and other company leaders provided rosy updates about the project’s progress and improvements that often contradicted the fears they discussed internally. 

In a voicemail obtained by The Post and Courier after the project’s collapse, SCANA’s top accountant on the V.C. Summer project accused Byrne, Marsh and Addison of propping up the project in order to cash in on their executive bonuses.

“They have broken every friggin’ law that you can break,” Carlette Walker said in a voice message to an employee at Santee Cooper, SCE&G’s minority partner on the V.C. Summer venture.

In February, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission accused Marsh, Byrne and their former company of fraud in an 87-page civil lawsuit that strongly hinted at possible criminal charges. Prosecutors on Monday asked a judge to halt that lawsuit until Byrne’s criminal case is over.

Marsh and Byrne retired from the company in 2018. Addison, the former chief financial officer, stayed on as CEO until the company’s sale to Dominion in 2019.

Dominion “continues to cooperate fully with state and federal authorities in the ongoing investigation,” company spokesman Ryan Frazier said Monday.

Gavin Newsom’s keeping it all in the family | CALmatters

digigod

Gavin Newsom’s keeping it all in the family

Gavin Newsom will be the first Democrat in more than a century to succeed another Democrat as governor and the succession also marks a big generational transition in California politics.

A long-dominant geriatric quartet from the San Francisco Bay Area – Gov. Jerry Brown, Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi – has been slowly ceding power to younger political strivers.

Moreover, Newsom is succeeding someone who could be considered his quasi-uncle, since his inauguration continues the decades-long saga of four San Francisco families intertwined by blood, by marriage, by money, by culture and, of course, by politics – the Browns, the Newsoms, the Pelosis and the Gettys.

The connections date back at least 80 years, to when Jerry Brown’s father, Pat Brown, ran for San Francisco district attorney, losing in 1939 but winning in 1943, with the help of his close friend and Gavin Newsom’s grandfather, businessman William Newsom.

Ties among the Brown, Newsom, Pelosi and Getty families date back three generations. Click on image for a larger view. Graphic for CALmatters by Nazneen Rydhan-Foster.

Fast forward two decades. Gov. Pat Brown’s administration developed Squaw Valley for the 1960s winter Olympics and afterward awarded a concession to operate it to William Newsom and his partner, John Pelosi.

One of the Pelosis’ sons, Paul, married Nancy D’Alesandro, who went into politics and has now reclaimed speakership of the House of Representatives. Another Pelosi son married William Newsom’s daughter, Barbara. Until they divorced, that made Nancy Pelosi something like an aunt by marriage to Gavin Newson (Nancy Pelosi’s brother-in-law was Gavin Newsom’s uncle).

The Squaw Valley concession was controversial at the time and created something of a rupture between the two old friends.

William Newsom wanted to make significant improvements to the ski complex, including a convention center, but Brown’s Department of Parks and Recreation balked. Newsom and his son, an attorney also named William, held a series of contentious meetings with officials over the issue.

An eight-page memo about those 1966 meetings from the department’s director, Fred Jones, buried in the Pat Brown archives, describes the Newsoms as being embittered and the senior Newsom threatening to “hurt the governor politically” as Brown ran for a third term that year against Ronald Reagan.

Pat Brown’s bid for a third term failed, and the Reagan administration later bought out the Newsom concession. But the Brown-Newsom connection continued as Brown’s son, Jerry, reclaimed the governorship in 1974. He appointed the younger William Newsom, a personal friend and Gavin’s father, to a Placer County judgeship in 1975 and three years later to the state Court of Appeal.

Justice Newsom, who died a few weeks ago, had been an attorney for oil magnate J. Paul Getty, most famously delivering $3 million to Italian kidnapers of Getty’s grandson in 1973. While serving on the appellate bench in the 1980s, he helped Getty’s son, Gordon, secure a change in state trust law that allowed him to claim his share of a multi-heir trust.

After Newsom retired from the bench in 1995, he became administrator of Gordon Getty’s own trust, telling one interviewer, “I make my living working for Gordon Getty.” The trust provided seed money for the PlumpJack chain of restaurants and wine shops that Newson’s son, Gavin, and Gordon Getty’s son, Billy, developed, the first being in a Squaw Valley hotel.

Gavin Newsom had been informally adopted by the Gettys after his parents divorced, returning a similar favor that the Newsom family had done for a young Gordon Getty many years earlier. Newsom’s PlumpJack business (named for an opera that Gordon Getty wrote) led to a career in San Francisco politics, a stint as mayor, the lieutenant governorship and now to the governorship, succeeding his father’s old friend.

He’s keeping it all in the extended family.