Business

No Image

Federal Judge Blocks Merger Of Anthem And Cigna

A federal judge has blocked Anthem’s bid to merge with another health insurer, Cigna. The Justice Department had said the deal would stifle competition. Michael Conroy/AP hide caption

toggle caption

Michael Conroy/AP

A federal judge has blocked the merger of two major health insurance companies, Anthem and Cigna, after the Justice Department concluded that the deal would reduce competition in the health insurance market and raise prices.

Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia made the ruling.

Announcing last summer that the Justice Department would oppose both the Anthem-Cigna merger and one by Aetna and Humana, then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch said:

“If allowed to proceed, these mergers would fundamentally reshape the health insurance industry. They would leave much of the multi-trillion dollar health insurance industry in the hands of three mammoth insurance companies, drastically constricting competition in a number of key markets that tens of millions of Americans rely on to receive health care. …

“If these mergers were to take place, the competition among these insurers that has pushed them to provide lower premiums, higher quality care and better benefits would be eliminated.”

Acting Assistant Attorney General Brent Snyder said Wednesday, “Today’s decision is a victory for American consumers.” A spokeswoman for Anthem said the insurer was reviewing the judge’s decision and had no comment Wednesday night.

A spokeswoman for Anthem says the company is reviewing the decision and has no comment yet.

Last month, another judge barred the Aetna-Humana deal on the same grounds.

NPR thanks our sponsors

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

White House Says Medicare Should Leverage Its Buying Power To Pull Down Drug Prices

Medicare accounts for about 29 percent of all spending on prescription medicines in the U.S. each year. stevecoleimages/iStockphoto/Getty Images hide caption

toggle caption

stevecoleimages/iStockphoto/Getty Images

Drug companies could be forgiven if they’re confused about whether President Donald Trump thinks the government should get involved in negotiating the price of prescription drugs for Medicare patients.

Just a few days before Trump was sworn in he said the pharmaceutical industry was “getting away with murder” in the way it prices medicine, and he promised to take the industry on. It was a promise he’d made repeatedly on the campaign trail.

“We’re the largest buyer of drugs in the world and yet we don’t bid properly,” he said in a news conference in early January. “We’re going to start bidding and we’re going to save billions of dollars over a period of time.”

But last week, Trump appeared to walk that vow back when he met with the leaders of several giant pharmaceutical companies at the White House.

“I’ll oppose anything that makes it harder for smaller, younger companies to take the risk of bringing a product to a vibrantly competitive market,” he said, sitting around a table in the Roosevelt Room, flanked by leaders of five large drugmakers. “That includes price fixing by the biggest dog in the market – Medicare — which is what’s happening.”

Article continues after sponsorship

So on Tuesday, White House spokesman Sean Spicer cleared up the confusion, for now at least.

When asked during his daily news briefing whether the president is in favor of having Medicare negotiate lower prices for prescription medicine, Spicer said, “He’s for it, yes. Absolutely.”

Spicer went on to say that the U.S. should be doing what other countries do — bring the government’s purchasing power to bear to get a better deal on medicine prices.

“So his commitment is to make sure that he does what he can,” Spicer said, “and, I think rather successfully, use his skills as a businessman to drive them down.”

Current U.S. law prohibits Medicare officials from interfering in the negotiations between drugmakers and the insurance companies that administer Medicare’s prescription drug plans.

Medicare accounts for about 29 percent of all spending on prescription medicines in the U.S. each year. So, would bringing Medicare’s huge purchasing power to bear in talks over prescription drug prices actually reduce those prices?

The only government report that looks at the issue is a 2007 Congressional Budget Office study that concluded that it would have a “negligible effect” on prices.

Dr. Walid Gellad, director of the Center for Pharmaceutical Policy and Prescribing at University of Pittsburgh disagrees.

“There’s a reason why the pharmaceutical industry does not want Medicare negotiation to happen,” Gellad told NPR. “And the obvious reason is because it will lower prices.”

Gellad said the CBO report doesn’t take into account the ability the government would have to say no to some particularly high-priced medicines.

If Medicare, for example, said it would pay for only one of the two major Hepatitis C medications on the market today — drugs that cost upwards of $40,000 for a course of treatment — Gellad estimates the drugmakers would cut the price by at least $10,000 to win the government’s business.

That sort of negotiating is already allowed at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

“If Medicare were to get the same prices for drugs as in the VA you’d have billions, tens of billions of dollars of savings,” Gellad told NPR.

The Medicare prescription drug program was created in 2003; the program’s drug coverage is handled exclusively by private insurance companies. There is no direct government pharmacy coverage.

That means each insurer negotiates prices for medications separately. If one insurance company strikes a deal regarding one drug, another company may negotiate a better price for a competing medication.

A 2015 study jointly published by Carleton University and the public advocacy group Public Citizen showed that Medicare pays, on average, 73 percent more than Medicaid pays for brand-name drugs, and 80 percent more than the VA pays.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

'Glass House' Chronicles The Sharp Decline Of An All-American Factory Town

Once a thriving factory town, Lancaster, Ohio is now beset by underemployment and drug abuse. Shelly Metcalf hide caption

toggle caption

Shelly Metcalf

Lancaster, Ohio, the home of the Fortune 500 company Anchor Hocking, was once a bustling center of industry and employment. At its peak following World War II, Lancaster’s hometown company was the world’s largest maker of glass tableware and employed more than 5,000 town residents.

Though Anchor Hocking remains in Lancaster today, it is a shell of its former self, and the once thriving town is beset by underemployment and drug abuse. Lancaster native Brian Alexander chronicles the rise and fall of his hometown in his new book, Glass House.

“People are genuinely struggling,” he tells Fresh Air’s Dave Davies. “The economy of the town is struggling, not because there’s high unemployment, [but] because the employment that there is all minimum wage, or even lower than minimum wage.”

Fairfield County, in which Lancaster is located, went 61 percent for Donald Trump in the presidential election — a fact that Alexander attributes to the candidate’s message of disaffection. Alexander says on Election Day one Lancaster woman told him she voted for Trump because she wanted “it to be like it was.”


Interview Highlights

On how Lancaster was once deemed an all-American town

After World War II, Forbes devoted almost its entire 30th anniversary issue to Lancaster, Ohio, of all places, and positioned Lancaster as the epitome and the apogee of the all-American town — a sort of perfect balance between large industry, agriculture [and] small businesses, like retail and merchants and so on. … And everything was in this state of almost Utopian equilibrium, and for the most part it really was like that.

Which is not to say there were not problems. There’s always been problems, there’s always been small-town scandals, and there’s always been an element of poverty, a fair amount of drinking in Lancaster. My grandfather used to say — he was an old glass man from western Pennsylvania — and when he would come to visit he would say that he never saw a town with more churches and more bars. … So it was not free of problems, but it was really, from my life, very much like Leave it to Beaver, quite honestly.

Article continues after sponsorship

On how Anchor Hocking contributed to the fabric of the town during its heyday

You had a core of college-educated, sophisticated people who made good livings working right downtown at the corner of Broad and Main Street, and more importantly, in some ways, their wives — remember this is ’40s, ’50s, ’60s and into the ’70s — their wives typically didn’t work at a career-type job outside the home. They threw themselves into the town. So they did hospital benefits, they did benefits for preserving the old Antebellum homes in Lancaster, they did vaccination drives, they made sure the sidewalks got repaired, the streets got paved, they attended city council meetings. This was a core of civic leadership.

On the 1987 acquisition of Anchor Hocking by the Newell Corp.

It was a hostile takeover. It’s still a little bit mysterious exactly how hostile it was, but they buy it in a hostile takeover, and the first thing they do is fire all of the executives and close down the headquarters. So now you have gutted a core group of people that were active in the life of the town. As one person in Lancaster, an old-timer who I interviewed said, “It ripped the heart out of this town.” So you’ve taken away the executives, you’ve taken away their wives, their families. …

[It was] devastating for the town. And the new incoming people, the people Newell picked to run Anchor Hocking never lived in Lancaster; they all lived in Columbus. There’s a long-standing belief, unshakable belief, that Newell instructed its incoming executives to not live in Lancaster, so as not to be involved in the United Way and other Lancaster civic activities. I could not find any proof of that, but you cannot shake Lancasterians’ belief that that was, in fact, the case. …

Workers will tell you that Newell was not a bad employer. They were not necessarily unhappy under Newell. It wasn’t the same; it was less of a family atmosphere. Workers who are hourly people and salaried people all say the same thing. They say that the company became somewhat more efficient, that they made money, they made money for Newell, that they were not unhappy under Newell, but it didn’t feel like the old Anchor Hocking, and it never would again.

On how what happened in Lancaster reflects a larger trend in capitalism

When you can pay a foreign worker a third or less of what you’re paying a unionized flint glass worker in Lancaster, that’s an element, but it’s far from the only one. We seem to have this shrugging-shoulders belief that this is all some sort of natural evolution, like how the dinosaurs died. But what I’m trying to argue in the book is that some of this, at least in part, results from a series of conscious decisions [by] politicians, economists, business people, financiers.

On what Lancaster is like today

Brian Alexander’s previous books include The Chemistry Between Us, Rapture and America Unzipped. Brian Alexander hide caption

toggle caption

Brian Alexander

The houses, for example, are not quite as well kept up as they used to be. The west side, which has always been the working class side of town, is even more disheveled than it used to be. … Parents are in jail, so grandparents or aunts or uncles have the kids. I saw just the other day a map of the state of Ohio that showed the percentage of kids who are now a part of the social service system and what the percentage of their parents who are opiate users. In Fairfield County, 58 percent of the kids who are in the system, their parents used opiates. The county next door, Hocking County, it’s over 70 percent. So now you’ve got drugs in the community, which are an escape from all this sort of stuff. …

The best thing going for Lancaster is how much people love their town, and they want it to work. But they’re up against some very tough situations.

On Lancaster voters supporting Trump in the presidential election

I think partly Trump has already fulfilled at least one expectation, and that is to sort of express this sort of generalized anger and aggressiveness that they wish they could [have] and Trump, I think, is sort of their pilot in doing it for them. Ultimately, I think they’ll find that to be empty, but I can’t be sure.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

A Small Business Owner On Trump's Plans For Small Businesses

NPR’s Lulu Garcia-Navarro speaks with small business owner Joy Weatherup Anthis about how she views President Trump’s plan for small business regulations and how they affect her construction business.

LOURDES GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST:

Slashing red tape was one of Donald Trump’s campaign promises. As president, he has made good on that promise, signing an executive order this past week that will mean for every new regulation put into law, two regulations will be slashed. And as he signed that order, President Trump was surrounded by small business owners who’d been invited to the White House for a listening session with Trump.

Joy Weatherup Anthis was one of them. She owns JWA Construction Management in DeWitt, N.Y., and she joins us from DeWitt this morning. Hi.

JOY WEATHERUP ANTHIS: How are you?

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Very well. So tell me a little bit about your business.

WEATHERUP ANTHIS: We’re a construction management services company. We make sure that the general contractors and subcontractors on a project stay within budget and time constraints and schedules. And we’re their eyes and ears basically.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: How have federal regulations affected you?

WEATHERUP ANTHIS: You know, they – the problem with federal regulations are there are ones that are necessary in our industry – in the construction industry for standards of construction of anything, from concrete to support beams and things like that. But the unnecessary ones are the ones that bog us down.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: So is it that there are too many regulations or that they’re too complicated – or both?

WEATHERUP ANTHIS: I think it’s both. If there was one regulation in the process that we would be able to somehow get through it, but there’s one on top of the other on top of the other. You feel like you’ve gotten to the end of the requirement, and then there’s – oh, by the way, one more thing to do, which, frankly, is what the president, I believe, is trying to do – is to make only the regulations that are in place essential regulations.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: You talked about that there are some good regulations that need to be protected. How do you make sure that those regulations stay in place and they don’t get jettisoned along with some of the other stuff?

WEATHERUP ANTHIS: Honestly, I’m not sure. I’m not familiar enough about what the people on Capitol Hill have to do when they go through the process. My hope is that the ones that are very, very important to the health and safety of our general public are the ones that stay and then they bring forward new ones that help our economy. So my hope is when they throw away two to bring forward one, that the two are some of the inconsequential, difficult, non-essential regulations that have been really hindering us.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: You know, the creation of new U.S. businesses has actually climbed steadily since 2010, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. And that runs counter to the narrative from the Trump administration that small businesses, medium-sized businesses have been stifled – or were stifled under the Obama administration.

WEATHERUP ANTHIS: They may have grown. But as you know, as well as I do, statistics can be manipulated. How fast have they grown? Have they grown to their potential? Have they grown enough? And it’s not that I don’t believe those numbers that they have grown steadily. And I’m hoping that some of the things that President Trump will put in place, such as the tax reform and the regulatory issues, will speed up whatever steady gain it has been said that we’ve made since 2010.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Joy Weatherup Anthis, small business owner from DeWitt, N.Y., thanks so much for being with us.

WEATHERUP ANTHIS: My pleasure.

Copyright © 2017 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

Yes, All This Happened. Trump's First 2 Weeks As President

President Trump speaks before signing an executive order surrounded by small business leaders in the Oval Office earlier this week. Pool/Getty Images hide caption

toggle caption

Pool/Getty Images

President Trump’s first two weeks in office have been a sprint, not the start of a marathon. If the rapid pace and, sometimes, hourly developments of executive orders, news, controversies and more have left you exhausted, you’re not alone. If you’re finding it hard to remember just everything that’s transpired too, we’re here for that, too.

Here’s a quick recap of the highlights — and lowlights — of the first 14 days of Trump’s nascent presidency.

Saturday, January 21

On his first full day as president, Trump goes to the CIA to try and mend fences with the intelligence agency he repeatedly maligned during the campaign and the transition. (He blamed the media for creating the feud, but his own tweets disprove that). While standing before a memorial at the agency, he argued over the crowd size at his inauguration, making false assertions which run counter to aerial photos of the event and NPR’s own reporters on the ground. He also claims it stopped raining during his inaugural address, when it did not.

Hours later, new press secretary Sean Spicer makes his first appearance in the White House briefing room to double down on those falsehoods about crowd size. He cites wrong numbers for Metro usage in D.C. and also falsely says that floor coverings used for the first time on the National Mall made photos show where there were gaps, when in fact such coverings had been used before. After delivering his fiery broadside, Spicer left without taking any questions.

Article continues after sponsorship

While all that was happening, the Women’s March on Washington protesting Trump and his policies toward women drew thousands and thousands of people — and the second highest Metro ridership day ever, second only to President Obama’s first inauguration. Protests weren’t just limited to D.C., though — similar events happened across the country that also drew massive crowds. And the protests even went worldwide, happening on all seven continents.

Sunday, January 22

The White House should have been in clean-up mode after Saturday’s first rocky day in office, but instead on the Sunday shows they doubled down on false claims about crowd size and more. Trump counselor Kellyanne Conway argued on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that Spicer had simply provided “alternative facts” when making his arguments — a moniker that looks primed to persist throughout the Trump administration.

Monday, January 23

The biggest news happened when Trump met that evening with both Republican and Democratic congressional leaders, reviving his unfounded claims that there were between 3 and 5 million illegal votes cast in the 2016 election that caused him to lose the popular vote to Democrat Hillary Clinton. This would continue to be an issue for the rest of the week (see more below).

Trump also signed an executive order reinstating the “Mexico City Policy,” a global gab rule which prohibits international non-governmental organizations (NGO) that provide or talk about abortion services from receiving federal funding. He also signaled his intent to withdraw from the Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement and instituted a federal hiring freeze except for the military.

Spicer had his second outing with the press, still in a largely defensive crouch. He blamed the press for trying to “undercut the tremendous support” for Trump and doubled down on his insistence that Trump’s was the most-watched inauguration ever, though given difficulty in counting streaming numbers, that’s hard to back-up.

Ethics experts filed a lawsuit in court alleging that the president was in violation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution because of his overseas businesses

Tuesday January 24

Spicer repeated Trump’s unfounded assertions that there was widespread voter fraud during the U.S. elections but provided no further proof of why the president believed that.

Trump approved construction of the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipeline, which had both been stopped during the Obama administration amid outcry from environmental groups. Other executive orders directed the Commerce Department to review how federal regulations might be impeding U.S. manufacturers.

Wednesday, January 25

Trump signed two executive orders keeping one of his top campaign promises, ordering the U.S. government to begin construction of a wall along the southern border with Mexico. He asserted that while the U.S. government would have to front the money, Mexico would pay it back. (Mexican leaders have said they will not.) Trump also directed Homeland Security and the Justice Departments to withhold federal funds from sanctuary cities.

In his first interview as president, Trump doubled-down (tripled-down?) on his unproven belief that there were millions of illegal voters. “You have people that are registered who are dead, who are illegals, who are in two states. You have people registered in two states. They’re registered in a New York and a New Jersey. They vote twice. There are millions of votes, in my opinion,” he told ABC’s David Muir.

Studies Trump cited offer no proof of such voter fraud. And he also incorrectly claimed it was illegal to be registered in two states; it’s not illegal unless someone votes in two states, because often voter rolls are not quickly updated. In fact, it turned out some Trump aides and family members were registered in multiple states.

Thursday, January 26

Trump traveled to Philadelphia to address the GOP congressional retreat, where he delivered a relatively on-message speech promising Obamacare repeal, to crack down on violent crime, and touted his executive actions on immigration and trade.

Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto canceled a planned trip to the U.S. amid Trump’s continued assertion that the country would repay the U.S. for the border wall. One possibility to recoup the investment from Mexico that the White House floated was a 20-percent import tax, which, as NPR’s Scott Horsley reported, “would effectively saddle U.S. consumers with a significant portion of the wall’s cost, estimated at $15 billion or more.”

Trump gives his second interview to a friendly source, Fox News’s Sean Hannity. He again boasts of his crowd sizes during his inauguration and talks about the (still unproven) allegations that there were millions of illegal votes cast in November.

He also tells Hannity he continues to believe waterboarding works and talks about bringing it back, though it is outlawed in the U.S. as torture. His new Defense Secretary, retired Gen. James Mattis, has said he does not believe waterboarding is effective and has reiterated it is illegal, as have top GOP congressional leaders such as Speaker Paul Ryan.

Friday, January 27

Trump signs an executive order which blocks travelers from seven countries, all of which are Muslim-majority — Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya and Somalia — from entering the U.S. for 90 days. New refugee admissions are suspended for 120 days, while Syrian refugees are banned indefinitely. There’s confusion at airports whether or not the ban includes those with valid U.S. visas, green cards or people from those countries who are permanent residents. Protests begin at airports as travelers are detained.

Trump hosted his first foreign leader at the White House — British Prime Minister Theresa May. She pushed for a future trade deal with the U.S. The two held a joint press conference, where May said Trump had reaffirmed his support for NATO — though he has questioned whether the U.S. should be in the alliance in the past.

The annual anti-abortion event the March for Life draws thousands more demonstrators to the national mall. Vice President Pence and Kellyanne Conway both spoke.

Saturday, January 28

Protests continue at airports across the country amid confusion over Trump’s travel ban. Immigration attorneys begin offering their services pro bono. Late on Saturday, a federal judge issued a stay on the deportations of valid visa holders after they have landed in the U.S. in response to an ACLU lawsuit.

Trump reshuffles the National Security Council, elevating controversial chief strategist Steve Bannon to be a permanent member of the principals committee, giving him equal billing with other Cabinet-level officials. The director of National Intelligence and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who are typically permanent members, will now only attend when pertinent issues are being discussed.

Trump calls several foreign leaders, including Russian President Vladimir Putin. He also has a tense call with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, though details won’t be reported on this until later in the week. The president tells Turnbull it was “the worst call by far” that he (Trump) has had that day and the two clash on the Obama administration’s deal to accept refugees from the country.

Trump signs several executive orders — an ethics order banning administration appointees from ever lobbying foreign governments and from federal lobbying for five years after they leave office. He also directs the administration to develop a “comprehensive plan to defeat ISIS.”

Sunday, January 29

A U.S. Navy SEAL is killed during a raid in Yemen targeted against al-Quaida militants, the first military casualty of Trump’s administration. Later in the week, questions are raised over how the operation — which also is believed to have killed several civilians — was carried out.

Protests continue at airports over the Trump administration’s travel ban.

Monday, January 30

Acting Attorney General Sally Yates (a holdover from the Obama administration) announces she will direct Justice Department lawyers not to defend Trump’s travel ban. Hours later, the president fires her and replaces her with Dana Boente, the top federal prosecutor in suburban Virginia, as the interim attorney general until his nominee, Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, is confirmed by the Senate.

More Republicans continue to speak out against Trump’s travel ban, voicing concern over its implementation. Former President Obama breaks his silence since leaving office, saying through a spokesman that “American values are at stake.”

Trump signs an executive order that says for every regulation the executive branch proposes, two others must be repealed.

Tuesday, January 31

Trump nominates federal appeals court Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. The evening ceremony in the White House’s East Room is arranged for suspense, which gives it the aura of a reality TV show in some ways. Conservatives praise his pick, which was a major campaign issue after Senate Republicans refused to take up President Obama’s nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, for much of 2016.

Wednesday, February 1

National Security Adviser Michael Flynn makes a surprise appearance at the daily press briefing to announce that the Trump administration is putting Iran “on notice” after the country conducted a ballistic missile test.

Trump and daughter Ivanka travel to Dover Air Force Base for the return to the U.S. of the remains of Navy SEAL William “Ryan” Owens, who was killed over the weekend in the Yemen raid.

The AP reports that during a call with Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto last week, Trump threatens to send in the U.S. military to stop the “bad hombres down there.” Mexico denies the remarks.

Thursday, February 2

The Celebrity Apprentice creator Mark Burnett introduces Trump at the annual National Prayer Breakfast. During his remarks, Trump called out the low ratings of the NBC reality show he once hosted, and criticized the new host, action star and former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. “And I want to just pray for Arnold, if we can, for those ratings, OK,” the president said.

Trump also pledges at the breakfast to repeal the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits tax-exempt religious groups from wading into politics.

Friday, February 3

A federal judge in Seattle temporarily halted Trump’s executive order on immigration and travel from some Muslim-majority countries. The order is effective nationwide.

New sanctions are announced against Iran, following up on the administration’s earlier threat against the country.

Trump signs two executive orders directing the review of the Dodd-Frank financial regulations and halting implementation of another federal rule which mandates financial advisers to act in the best interests of their clients.

Saturday, February 4

Airlines resume allowing travelers once affected by Trump’s travel ban to come to the U.S.

Trump, who is at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Fla., for the weekend, tweets that, “The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!” He later adds on Twitter that because of the “terrible decision” that “many very bad and dangerous people may be pouring into our country.”

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Episode 752: Eagles vs. Chickens

A bald eagle flies off with its kill. White Oak Pastures/White Oak Pastures hide caption

toggle caption

White Oak Pastures/White Oak Pastures

Will Harris took over his family’s industrial farm after he graduated from college. Harris was making a profit, just as his dad had. He was also farming just as his dad had: with pesticides in the field, hormone injections for the cattle, and whatever else squeezed more money out of his land.

Over time, though, Harris’s worldview changed. He started to see the downside to the industrial farming: his animals weren’t as healthy as they could be. His soil wasn’t as rich as the soil just over the fence in the forest nearby. He wanted a different kind of farm, one that didn’t depend on chemical fertilizers or man-made interventions.

He went organic. He started making changes. To replace the chemical fertilizer, he brought in chickens and let them roam free. Free-range chickens would fertilize the grass; the grass would nurture the cattle, and shoppers at Whole Foods would love Harris’s organic beef. It was a great plan.

But then, the eagles started to descend on Harris’s farm. Eagles eat chicken. Eagles love chicken.

Article continues after sponsorship

Today on the show, a farmer tries to live more in harmony with nature — and pays the price.

Music: “Lead Me Away” and “Breaking All The Ties.” Find us: Twitter/ Facebook.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Snapchat, All Grown-Up: 5 Things We Learned From Snap's IPO Filing

Snap co-founder and CEO Evan Spiegel is taking the parent company of the Snapchat app public. Jae C. Hong/AP hide caption

toggle caption

Jae C. Hong/AP

When a 2014 Forbes cover featured a grinning cofounder of Snapchat, the accompanying text described CEO Evan Spiegel as “the 23-year-old who told Zuckerberg to take his $3 billion and shove it.” Snapchat had just turned away Facebook’s acquisition offer, which was triple the amount the social network paid for Instagram in 2012.

The thing Spiegel was holding out for is happening now, after much anticipation: Snapchat’s parent company, Snap, is going public, hoping to raise at least $3 billion.

By most reports, this is slated to be the biggest tech initial public offering in years. The listing is expected to value Snap between $20 billion and $25 billion — the highest valuation of an American tech company since Facebook.

Snap’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission presented the first chance for outsiders to review the company’s financials. Here’s a quick summary from Reuters:

“Snap had $404.5 million in sales in 2016, up from $58.7 million in 2015. However, it had a net loss of $514.6 million in 2016, up from a net loss of $372.9 million in 2015. … Snap had 158 million active users in 2016, up 48 percent from 2015.”

The filings also had a few interesting tidbits. Below are five things we gleaned.

Snap may be the first company to discuss “sexting” in a stuffy SEC initial public offering filing.

That’s because the history of Snapchat as a popular social app starts with parents worried about how their children were using the self-deleting photographs.

Article continues after sponsorship

“Many people didn’t understand what Snapchat was, and said it was just for sexting — even when we knew it was being used for so much more,” the IPO documents say.

In the past five years Snap has become a social mainstay for its users, the majority of whom are between 18 and 34 years old. It has popularized funky selfie filters, as well as telling stories through a sequence of photos and videos — imitated later by Instagram. Last year Snap launched camera glasses called Spectacles; in Thursday’s filings, Snap describes itself as a “camera company.”

“We believe that the camera screen will be the starting point for most products on smartphones,” the company says in its SEC filing.

Snap makes virtually all of its money through advertising.

For the past two years, advertising revenue accounted for an average of 97 percent of Snap’s revenue. The company says most advertisers don’t have long-term advertising commitments with Snap, something the company hopes to achieve.

As The Economist points out, this poses a new kind of challenge for the relationship Snap is building with its users:

“Although Snap encourages users to be silly on its app, it hopes to be taken seriously as a business. It will need to decide what approach it should take when using information about users to target ads. Mr Spiegel has called the practice ‘creepy’ in the past. Yet Snap may need to share more data about its users; Mr Spiegel has indicated that he may be willing to do this.”

Unlike Facebook and Twitter, which pushed to keep growing users, Snap is focused on increasing the time and energy each user puts into the app.

In outlining risks related to its business, Snap repeatedly points out that its operations are best in places with affordable and abundant Internet access that’s strong enough to constantly load video:

“Unlike many other free mobile applications, the majority of our users tend to be located in markets with high-end mobile devices and high-speed cellular internet,” the filings read. These also happen to be the markets where advertisers pay the biggest bucks.

But these are also markets that eventually will run out of new users for Snapchat. So Snap says its strategy is to keep innovating the camera platform “in an effort to drive user engagement, which we can then monetize through advertising.”

Snapchat’s cofounders — CEO Spiegel and CTO Robert Murphy — will keep control of all stockholder decisions.

The two Stanford fraternity brothers have had this control because they own the majority of voting stock, and the IPO is structured to keep it that way — which Reuters points out is extraordinary:

“Existing investors will have one vote for each of their shares, while new investors will have no voting rights.

“Keeping tight control is common in companies closely associated with their founders, who often prefer to grow their business without being questioned by a broad array of investors. Still, offering a class of stock with no votes in an IPO is unprecedented.”

Snap runs on Google.

For the vast majority of computing, data storage and other needs that go into running an Internet service, Snap says it relies on the cloud services of Google. Though the deal is not exclusive, Snap says it has committed to spend $2 billion with Google Cloud in the next five years.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Episode 751: The Thing About That Border Tax

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) headquarters stands in Washington, D.C., U.S. Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images hide caption

toggle caption

Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images

America’s corporate tax is a mess. Republicans have a plan to fix it. But it will be a tough sell.

The new plan would lower the corporate tax rate, currently one of the highest in the world. And it would change how the tax works on a fundamental level. It’s called a border adjustment tax, and it would be a huge tax break to American exporters.

Of course every tax change has winners and losers. The losers under the new tax plan would be any business that imports products. Businesses like Walmart and Target would likely pay more in taxes.

Trade economists have talked about the border adjustment tax for decades, but it is only now getting its moment in the spotlight. The Republicans in Congress are pushing it as a way to lower the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent.

The plan even got the approval of President Donald Trump as a way to make Mexico pay for a border wall.

But on today’s episode we talk to an early backer of the border adjustment tax, and he says it doesn’t do what everyone thinks it does. It definitely doesn’t punish Mexico or make them pay for anything. And in the end it won’t even hurt the nation’s importers.

Article continues after sponsorship

The reason is complicated. We’ll use a jar of marbles and a lovely music box to make sense of the Republican border adjustment tax plan.

Music: “Baiser Fatal.” Find us: Twitter/ Facebook.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Administration Orders Easement For Construction Of Dakota Access Pipeline

Protesters gather in December 2016 at a camp near the Dakota Access Pipeline construction site. Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images hide caption

toggle caption

Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images

Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., says the acting secretary of the army has directed the Corps of Engineers to proceed with the easement for construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline.

The project, which is slated to carry North Dakota crude to Midwestern refineries, has drawn protesters who say oil might leak from the structure and contaminate water supplies, and that construction is disturbing lands sacred to the Sioux tribe.

In December, the Obama administration ordered a pause for an environmental study, but President Trump moved soon after his inauguration to support the pipeline, along with the Keystone XL pipeline for Canadian crude.

Hoeven said he had spoken with both Acting Secretary of the Army Robert Speer and Vice President Pence about the easement:

“This will enable the company to complete the project, which can and will be built with the necessary safety features to protect the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and others downstream.

“Building new energy infrastructure with the latest safeguards and technology is the safest and most environmentally sound way to move energy from where it is produced to where people need it.”

Hoeven also said he is working to get additional funds for law enforcement at the site.

Article continues after sponsorship

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe has fought against construction of the pipeline for months, with members and supporters living on the site, trying to block construction. The tribe said it will continue its battle:

“[The announcement] is … not a formal issuance of the easement—it is notification that the easement is imminent. …

“The Army Corps lacks statutory authority to simply stop the [environmental study] and issue the easement. The Corps must review the Presidential Memorandum, notify Congress, and actually grant the easement. We have not received formal notice that the [study] has been suspended or withdrawn.”

Rep. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., said in a statement that the pipeline is an important piece of energy infrastructure enhancing America’s energy security and putting North Dakotans and Americans back to work. President Trump has proven to be a man of action and I am grateful for his commitment to this and other critical infrastructure projects so vital to our nation.”

Amy Sisk of Prairie Public Broadcasting contributed to this report.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Is Today's Google Doodle A Poke At The Trump Administration?

Fred Korematsu fought U.S. internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Google/Screenshot by NPR hide caption

toggle caption

Google/Screenshot by NPR

Alphabet, the parent company of Google, is among the tech firms that are critical of the Trump administration’s executive order barring Muslim immigrants from certain countries. This weekend, Google co-founder Sergey Brin took part in protests at the San Francisco International Airport.

Today, the Google Doodle — the picture that appears on the home page of the search engine — provided a subtle reminder of what happens when the U.S. targets a group of citizens because of their national origins. The Doodle is an illustration of Fred Korematsu, the civil rights activist and survivor of the internment camps where the U.S. government put Japanese-Americans during World War II.

In 1942, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed an executive order that incarcerated more than 115,000 people of Japanese descent. The order was based on fears that in the wake of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the heritage of these Americans meant they might be spies for the enemy.

Korematsu, the son of Japanese immigrants but born and raised in Oakland, Calif., was 23 when the order came down. He went into hiding but was eventually arrested for refusing to report for relocation and sent to an internment camp with his family in Utah. His conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court in Korematsu v. United States.

Decades later in 1976, President Gerald Ford ended the executive order and apologized for the internment saying in part that “Japanese-Americans were and are loyal Americans.” And in 1983, Korematsu’s conviction was overturned as the court reconsidered the motivations behind the order.

Article continues after sponsorship

Five years later, President Ronald Regan signed The Civil Liberties Act of 1988, citing “racial prejudice, wartime hysteria and a lack of political leadership” as the real reason for the internment.

Today would have been Korematsu’s 98th birthday. (He died in 2005.) It is officially recognized as Fred Korematsu Day in California, Hawaii, Virginia and Florida.

But Google’s choice to make him the focus of the Google Doodle doesn’t seem like a total coincidence.

The Trump administration says that the executive order banning entry from certain Muslim countries isn’t targeted at all Muslims, but the order also says that refugee claims by religious minorities from those countries should be given priority for entry. And Trump suggested to the Christian Broadcasting Network that he wants to give priority to persecuted Christians.

At least someone at Google must think there are parallels between what happened to the Japanese during World War II and the questions that Muslim Americans are facing today about their loyalty to the U.S.

And they aren’t alone in seeing the parallels. The actor George Takei has started a Care2 petition asking Americans to stand up for Muslims. Takei, who is gay and Japanese-American, is best known for his role as Sulu in Star Trek. He was also held, along with his family, in one of the internment camps for Japanese-Americans.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai was among several tech executives who have denounced Trump’s immigration ban. In response, Pichai has created a $2 million fund to help refugees, calling it the company’s “largest campaign ever.”

Google Doodles have occasionally taken heat from conservatives for being liberal leaning. Past Doodles have included historical civil rights leaders such as Cesar Chavez, the founder of the National Farm Workers Association, and Yuri Kochiyama, who was friends with Malcolm X and showed support for controversial figures such as Che Guevara and Fidel Castro.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)