May 31, 2019

No Image

Business May 31, 2019

What Trump’s Latest Aid Package Means For U.S. Farmers

President Trump announced an aid package for farmers last week worth $16 billion. It’s meant to offset losses from the trade war. The Indicator podcast talked to one U.S. farmer about how helpful it will be.



AUDIE CORNISH, HOST:

Last week, President Donald Trump announced a huge aid package for farmers affected by the trade war with China. Sixteen billion dollars will go toward farmers who have lost money as a result of fewer Chinese imports. Stacey Vanek Smith, co-host of The Indicator From Planet Money, spoke to one Ohio farmer about the impact of the trade war on his farm and how he feels about the president’s latest aid package.

STACEY VANEK SMITH, BYLINE: Brian Watkins is a sixth-generation farmer in northwest Ohio. He raises corn, soybeans, wheat and pigs. So Brian, when the trade war with China went into effect, what did that mean for you?

BRIAN WATKINS: We saw, you know, immediate market reaction and lowered prices. On the hog side, I would say you’re looking at probably a 5 to 10% obvious market reaction. On the soybean side, it was more like 20%.

SMITH: Whoa.

WATKINS: The price of soybeans just tanked.

SMITH: What did that mean for your business? I know that farming typically doesn’t have giant profit margins.

WATKINS: No, we don’t have a 20% profit margin. I mean, if the price goes down 20%, that’s the difference between profit and loss. The administration brought out their first aid package last fall. Most of that money went to soybean farmers.

SMITH: Did you see any of it?

WATKINS: We did see a payment on our farm; my farm got a payment. They paid $1.65 per bushel, for every bushel of soybeans you grew in 2018.

SMITH: Said you think you lost money because of the tariffs and the effect that they had.

WATKINS: Right.

SMITH: I mean, did this make up for it, entirely? Or…

WATKINS: For soybeans, for most of it, it did. Yes, quite frankly, it did. So this is where we get into the interesting thing. So now – what? – two weeks ago, they broke off the talks with China.

SMITH: Yeah.

WATKINS: And it looks like both sides are entrenching.

SMITH: I know.

WATKINS: And they’re both talking about changing supply chains and all this stuff. So now we’re in a mode of China, as a market, is gone. Well, from a farmer standpoint, that’s – you know, that’s really not good because they’ve been such a big market for us. And so I think because of that, the administration has – they’re scrambling, right? And there’s farmers who are a very important constituency to them. So this latest package has been put together very quickly.

But here’s the rub, Stacey. I’ve got to decide, OK, am I going to plant corn? Am I going to plant soybeans? Well, this subsidy package, if they say, well, we’re going to pay whatever – let’s say they’re going to pay another $1.65 for soybeans, that suddenly becomes this big incentive for me to try to plant soybeans to get more of the payment.

SMITH: So I mean, how do you feel about all this? Are you – how do you feel about the farm aid?

WATKINS: (Laughter) Well, I’m not really sure what I think. I think many farmers understand that there are legitimate issues in the – this trade battle between the U.S. and China. But in the long run, I don’t want subsidies to be a part of my income. I want to have a market, and I want to be able to react to it. I would like for them to work it out (laughter), you know, to the point where we can still sell things to China – so yeah.

SMITH: If China goes away as a market for at least, let’s say, the foreseeable future, how big of a deal is that?

WATKINS: It’s a big, big deal. It shrinks our business. I mean, it means that prices will be lowered. Something like 40% of our soybeans were going to China. This is not just business as usual. I mean, the loss of China – that’s a big deal; that’s a big, big deal.

SMITH: Stacey Vanek Smith, NPR News.

(SOUNDBITE OF SHLOHMO’S “THE END”)

Copyright © 2019 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

No Image

Health May 31, 2019

What’s At Stake For Georgia If Hollywood Boycotts Over A New Abortion Law

A boycott of Georgia’s booming film industry could cause major damage to the state’s economy. NPR’s Audie Cornish speaks with Bryn Sandberg of The Hollywood Reporter about how this could happen.



AUDIE CORNISH, HOST:

The state of Georgia has become one of the movie capitals of the world. These days it produces more feature films per year than Hollywood. But some of the biggest media companies like Netflix, Disney and Warner Media said this week that they might consider leaving Georgia because of its new restrictions on abortion. Bryn Sandberg of The Hollywood Reporter has been covering this situation, and she joins us now. Welcome to ALL THINGS CONSIDERED.

BRYN SANDBERG: Thank you for having me.

CORNISH: First of all, to start, how did Georgia become competitive in this industry, right? How did we reach a point where Georgia could be competing with the New York’s and LA’s of the world to lure production companies?

SANDBERG: It’s definitely been a massive industry for Georgia in the last 10 years because about a decade ago is when they instituted these new, very generous, lucrative tax incentives which gives productions up to 30% back depending on how much they spend and whether they’re willing to put a Georgia peach logo in their credits and that sort of thing. But it’s really significant money back for these major studios in Hollywood.

CORNISH: And what has it gotten back?

SANDBERG: There was a record 455 films and television productions that were shot in Georgia in the last fiscal year. And they represented a $2.7, you know, billion in direct spending, which they estimate brings in $9.5 billion in total economic impact. So these numbers are really huge. And they have been a huge destination for feature films, and not just any sort of feature films, expensive blockbusters, the biggest of those being Marvel’s “Avengers” movies, which shot at Pinewood Studios in Atlanta, which is a big production facility.

CORNISH: As we mentioned, studios and media companies have sent some warning signals. How likely, though, is an actual boycott?

SANDBERG: These laws have sort of been spreading. And production people here in Hollywood are sort of taking a wait-and-see approach. And this abortion ban isn’t supposed to take effect until January of 2020. So we have this sort of in-between time where a lot of studios and producers and executives are trying to figure out what the best course of action is, and do they keep projects there in the meantime? Should it be overturned before it’s enacted, then Hollywood doesn’t really have to worry about pulling out their productions.

CORNISH: That’s the business side of it, but people make a lot of the politics of Hollywood. Is there a sense that people actually support the idea of a boycott?

SANDBERG: I think that there is a bit of a political divide. Depending on who you talk to, you’ll get different perspectives and different strategies on this issue. You look at what J.J. Abrams and Jordan Peele did with their upcoming HBO show “Lovecraft County (ph)” that they’re about to shoot in Georgia. They said they were going to continue on with production in the state and that they were going to donate 100% of their episodic fees to the ACLU of Georgia and Fair Fight Georgia, which are two organizations working to oppose the law and overturn it in court.

So their perspective was that, you know, they talked to a lot of people on the ground in Georgia and felt that it would only be hurting the local crew and the actors and local production companies and all these people who really need these jobs if they were to just relocate at the 11th hour.

So if you look at an Amazon show called “The Power” that Reed Morano is making and ended up deciding to look elsewhere after this legislation was passed. So you’re seeing a lot of different strategies, and there is definitely discussion in town here about whether a boycott is the most effective one.

CORNISH: That’s Bryn Sandberg of The Hollywood Reporter. Thank you for speaking with us.

SANDBERG: Thank you so much for having me.

Copyright © 2019 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

No Image

Entertainment May 31, 2019

Koffee Takes Her ‘Rapture’ To The Streets With New Remix

Koffee’s “Rapture” remix pours the gasoline of adrenaline onto an already fire track.

Frank Fieber/Courtesy of the artist


hide caption

toggle caption

Frank Fieber/Courtesy of the artist

Koffee is waking up new generations to the style, complexity and power of reggae. The Jamaican-born rising star and 2019 NPR Slingshot artist has only been at this professionally for a couple years — the 19-year-old recently graduated from high school — but her passion for her culture is palpable and the momentum of her music is only building.

YouTube

After dropping the five-song EP Rapture in March — the project was easily one of the best releases in 2019 so far — Koffee is back with a remix to the title track. “Rapture (Remix),” featuring fellow Spanish Town native Govana, adds an extra shot of adrenaline, throwing gasoline onto an already fire track. For the official remix video, the duo took it to the streets of their hometown to show how community, beauty and danger all intermingle on their island.

“Koffee anna coffee, mi say no gimmicks / She a pro widit, treat di ridddim like she grow wid it,” Govana rhymes, propping up young Koffee as she awaits stardom.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

No Image

Sports May 31, 2019

Catch The Wave: Commonalities Of Surfing And Finances

In recent years, technology, education and government regulation have helped make the sport of surfing and finance less risky. Both have a lot in common and teach us a lot about risk.



STEVE INSKEEP, HOST:

What does surfing have in common with finance? Stumped you, didn’t I? Well, both can bring you a reward. There’s the rush of successfully surfing a big wave and the rush of successfully investing in a stock. Both also, of course, have an element of risk.

Cardiff Garcia and Stacey Vanek Smith, co-hosts of the podcast The Indicator from NPR’s Planet Money, have more.

STACEY VANEK SMITH, BYLINE: Allison Schrager is an unexpected guide to the history of surfing. She is an economist who studies risk.

CARDIFF GARCIA, BYLINE: Have you ever surfed?

ALLISON SCHRAGER: No.

GARCIA: (Laughter) Allison writes about the history of big-wave surfing in her new book, “An Economist Walks Into A Brothel: And Other Unexpected Places To Understand Risk.” To Allison, the history of surfing is about how technologies that are designed to make the world safer and less risky can have the unexpected result of sometimes making it more dangerous, more risky.

SMITH: In the early days of big-wave surfing, surfers had to be really fantastic swimmers.

SCHRAGER: And if they wiped out, they might have to swim three or four miles in really rough surf to get back to shore. So back then, it was a very small, very elite group of people who had these superhuman swimming skills.

GARCIA: But then surfers started using a leash, which attaches their leg to the surfboard. Allison says the leash did make surfing safer, but it also made it more likely that weaker swimmers would take up surfing in the first place.

SMITH: And those weaker swimmers might take more risks because they thought the leash made them safer. Brian Keaulana is a lifelong surfer in Hawaii. He says he sees this every time a new technology makes surfing a little bit safer. He says it happened again after surfers started using jet skis as rescue vehicles.

BRIAN KEAULANA: But technology, for me, is a double-edged sword because without proper training, it also sends a false sense of safety also out in the lineup. So I also see people taking more of a risk because they see the use of the jet skis there, as well as flotation devices.

SMITH: Not only were weaker surfers now getting into big-wave surfing because of the jet ski, but strong surfers were using jet skis to get to bigger and bigger waves, like 80-foot-tall waves.

GARCIA: In other words, these strong surfers were using the jet ski, which was supposed to make surfing safer, to take bigger and bigger risks.

SMITH: And in fact, this is what reminded economist Allison Schrager of financial markets. Just like a jet ski can make it safer to ride a big wave, there are financial products that can make it safer to invest your money because they limit how much money you can lose.

And just the same way a jet ski can be used to take on bigger and bigger waves, those same financial products can also make it easier to take a bigger risk with your investments.

GARCIA: And so the question is, what can be done to make sure that people are taking the right amount of risk, either in surfing or in finance? Education is one way to help people manage risks. Another way is government regulation, which is what’s used in finance. For example, sometimes there are restrictions imposed by the government on what kinds of financial products you can invest in. Now, in surfing, there are some regulations about using jet skis to ride big waves in Hawaii. But Allison says that generally speaking, surfers are opposed to regulation.

SMITH: And Allison’s main point is that whether it is surfing or financial products, these debates are definitely going to continue – because even when people learn how to manage the risk that comes with a new technology, either through education or regulation or just from getting used to a new risk, another technology can come along that introduces new risks. Stacey Vanek Smith.

GARCIA: Cardiff Garcia, NPR News.

Copyright © 2019 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)