Comrades No More: Prigozhin's Rebellion Shakes Foundations

 

 In the words of Winston Churchill, Russian leaders are like "bulldogs fighting under a carpet." More than a year after Mr. Putin's invasion of Ukraine, it seems that his dogs of war are now openly fighting each other. As the drama unfolds, the world becomes a captive audience, observing with bated breath how the intricate plot of power dynamics will unfold on this turbulent stage.

In the face of accusations, betrayal, and rising insurrection, does Vladimir Putin's response reflect a cunning manipulation of power-hungry factions or a loss of control over his subordinates? The whole drama started on Friday (June 23), when the fight between Russia's warlords suddenly turned into what is basically a big rebellion. Wagner mercenaries started  going against the regular army and trying to control the city of Rostov-on-Don, which is close to Ukraine. The president, Vladimir Putin, spoke to the nation about the crisis and called Prigozhin's actions a betrayal of Russia. People are asking if he is playing games with power-hungry groups or if he is losing control of his own team.

The Wagner rebellion started when their leader, Yevgeny Prigozhin, made videos accusing Russia's army of attacking his group. He threatened to bring thousands of his fighters to fight back. Some generals made videos asking the Wagner troops to stay loyal, but it didn't work. On June 24th, there were videos on social media showing Wagner soldiers surrounding important places in Rostov-on-Don. People watched the videos and saw a street-sweeper working nearby. Later, Prigozhin was filmed outside a military building, calling Russian generals "clowns." He said they could keep fighting in Ukraine but demanded that the top leaders talk to him, or he would go to Moscow. Further north in Pavlovsk, videos seemed to show helicopters fighting. Wagner claimed they shot one down, and the army let them pass. Russian media didn't report on what happened in Rostov-on-Don, but the TASS News Agency published pictures of the soldiers, calling them Wagner fighters in English.

Meanwhile, the Ukrainian forces have been trying to push back against their enemy, Russia. Although their progress has been slow, they will be happy to see the confusion and disorder among the Russian troops. It's not clear yet if they can take advantage of this situation and win in battle. Russia said that the Ukrainian troops were using Prigozhin's actions to plan an attack near Bakhmut, where there has been a lot of violent fighting involving Wagner. The Ukrainian commanders say they haven't used all their forces yet and are still looking for weak spots. However, it seems that they have already caused enough problems for Russia's military leaders.

Epic Showdown!

Mr. Prigozhin and the military leaders have been rivals for a long time. He has gained a lot of followers by making videos where he complains about the high command's corruption and incompetence. His group, filled with ex-convicts, has proven to be better fighters than regular Russian troops. Mr. Prigozhin has accused top officials of being cowards and deliberately withholding weapons and supplies from his group.

On June 23rd, Mr. Prigozhin posted videos that were even more surprising than usual. He questioned the reasons for Mr. Putin's military operation and claimed there was no real threat from Ukraine. He said Russian leaders, not Mr. Putin, had led the country to war because of corruption and selfishness. He also said Ukrainian forces were advancing, contradicting the Kremlin's claims. He called the information from the Kremlin a complete lie.

Things took a serious turn when Mr. Prigozhin claimed that Russian army units had attacked and killed thousands of Wagner fighters. He vowed that his group would respond and march against the Russian army, but he denied it was a coup. He specifically targeted Mr. Shoigu, accusing him of ordering the attack and running away to avoid explaining his actions. In another video, Mr. Prigozhin declared that the military leadership's evil deeds must be stopped. He demanded that nobody resist but didn't say what he would do. He also warned that his group would consider anyone who resisted a threat and destroy them immediately.

There is a lot of uncertainty about Mr. Prigozhin's actions. Mr. Putin has allowed him to criticize the campaign, even though others are jailed for calling it a "war." However, Mr. Prigozhin seems to have genuinely unsettled the top military brass. The defense ministry denied Mr. Prigozhin's accusations and called them a "provocation." The FSB, the main Russian security service, announced that they would prosecute Mr. Prigozhin for calling for an armed uprising. They warned Wagner fighters not to make a mistake, stop using force against the Russian people, and take steps to detain him. Senior generals who support Wagner also released their own videos late at night. General Surovikin, a deputy commander, sat with a rifle and pleaded with Wagner units to stop. He said the enemy was waiting for the political situation in Russia to worsen and urged them to follow Mr. Putin's orders.

Security forces, including armored vehicles, were seen in Moscow, and important facilities and authorities were given extra protection. Mr. Putin's spokesperson said that the necessary measures were being taken, and Mr. Putin himself vowed punishment for anybody or group causing armed uprising in Russia. Some analysts see this as a power struggle between Mr. Shoigu and Mr. Prigozhin.

In the words of Winston Churchill, Russian leaders are now like "bulldogs fighting under a carpet." More than a year after Mr. Putin's invasion of Ukraine, it seems that his dogs of war are now openly fighting each other. After over a year since Mr. Putin launched his invasion of Ukraine, a surprising turn of events has occurred. Instead of focusing on external conflicts, it appears that the internal strife within Russia's ranks has escalated. The once united "dogs of war" under Putin's command are now engaged in open conflict amongst themselves. This unexpected twist highlights a growing rift and power struggle within the Russian military and government. As the dogs of war fight amongst themselves, the consequences and implications of this internal turmoil remain uncertain, leaving observers questioning the stability and future course of Russia's actions.

 

 

 

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

 

Notes

Getty, J. A. (2013). Practicing Stalinism: Bolsheviks, Boyars, and the Persistence of Tradition. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Osborn , A., & Liffey, K. (2023, June 24). Russian Mercenary Boss Prigozhin in Standoff With Russian Army Amid 'Armed Mutiny'. Retrieved from Yahoo! News: https://www.yahoo.com/news/wagner-head-suggests-mercenaries-headed-043537006.html

Regan , H., & Raine, A. (2023, June 24). Russia Accuses Wagner Chief of Urging "Armed Rebellion". Retrieved from CNN: https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/russia-ukraine-war-news-06-24-23/index.html

TASS News Agency. (2023, June 23). Prigozhin Charged With Armed Mutiny, to Face Up to 20 Years in Prison. Retrieved from https://tass.com/russia/1637475

The Economist. (2023, June 24). Rebellion in Russia: Wagner Rebels Turn Against Putin’s Army. Retrieved from https://www.economist.com/europe/2023/06/24/wagner-rebels-turn-against-putins-army

 

 

China as Africa’s New Overlord

 

Africa is becoming the new battleground for the global infrastructure race. China is winning, and the West is starting to sweat.

 The next time you're in Africa, look around. Chances are, you will see something that was built by the Chinese. In plain terms, China has become the leader in constructing large projects in Africa. Chinese companies, supported by Beijing, have transformed the transportation system on the continent. They have built railways connecting cities, shortened travel time in Congo, and improved numerous airports. In addition to these achievements, China has constructed skyscrapers, bridges, dams, and ports, making a significant impact in Africa.

However, things were different in the past. In 1990, American and European companies dominated the construction industry in Africa, securing more than 85% of the contracts. Chinese companies were not even considered. But now, Western companies are struggling to compete in this rapidly growing market. The World Bank reported that by the year 2040, the need for money to build infrastructure will be more than $300 billion every year. Africa's population is growing faster than any other continent, and people are migrating to cities at a rapid pace. These factors will drive the demand for infrastructure. Chinese companies currently account for 31% of all infrastructure projects valued at $50 million or more in Africa, up from 12% in 2013, while Western companies are responsible for only about 12%, compared to 37% in 2013, according to Deloitte, a consulting firm.

This shift in favor of Chinese companies concerns not only shareholders of Western firms but also their governments. Western governments view China's increasing economic influence in Africa as a threat to their own strategic and diplomatic power. China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which finances infrastructure projects, including ports and roads, has raised concerns that it may lead to China establishing naval bases in Africa, similar to the one in Djibouti. Western governments are also worried that Chinese investments in African mines could give China control over strategic minerals like cobalt, which is used in electric cars. Recently, the United States has prioritized competition with China in its foreign policy. Both the US and Europe have been trying to provide African countries with alternative financing options to the Belt and Road Initiative. European leaders, for example, earmarked over  €150 billion ($170 billion) for investment in African infrastructure during their  EU-Africa summit in February 2022.

Western governments are urging their companies to invest more and undertake more projects in Africa. However, this is challenging because Western construction firms feel disadvantaged from the beginning, primarily due to China's significant financial resources. Between 2007 and 2020, Chinese development banks provided $23 billion for African infrastructure, while all other development banks combined only contributed $9.1 billion, according to the Centre for Global Development, a think-tank in Washington (See figure 1 below).

 Table 1

Finance for Sub-Saharan Africa from Bilateral Development Finance Institutions

(2007 – 2020) 

Bilateral Finance Institution	Amount ($)
China EXIM Bank	$20 Billion
China Development Bank	$2.50 Billion
Oversea Private Investment Corporation (US)	$2.10 Billion
Japan’s Bank for International Development	$1.70 Billion
KfW (Germany)	$1.60 Billion
FMO (Netherland)	$1.40 Billion
Development Bank of Southern Africa	$1.10 Billion
Proparco (France)	$0.90 Billion

               Source: Culled from The Economist, 2022.

Pluckier, Riskier, and Hilariously Reckless

Chinese lenders in Africa are generally braver than Western lenders. Sometimes they take big risks. When Kenya's president, Uhuru Kenyatta, wanted $4.7 billion to build a new railway, the World Bank said it would never make money. But Chinese lenders supported the project. Unfortunately, the railway has lost over $200 million. Chinese companies are also tough when it comes to making deals. They have made agreements in Ghana and Guinea, where they give loans for roads in exchange for valuable resources like bauxite. A study by AidData, which is part of William & Mary University, found that Chinese lenders often put tough conditions to make sure they get their money back.

Western companies also complain that their governments don't offer as many benefits. In 2021, China said it would use its own money to build new foreign ministries in Congo and Kenya. They have also paid for other important buildings, like parliament complexes in Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe, and presidential palaces in Burundi, Guinea-Bissau, and Togo. Because of this generosity, it's not surprising that some African governments prefer Chinese companies. On the other hand, Western governments often use their aid for less glamorous and sometimes unpopular things, like educating girls.

One important thing is that Chinese companies are known for building things quickly. They get money from Chinese banks easily, and some projects in Africa look like copies of ones built in China. This probably saves time because they don't have to make new plans. For example, the stations along the new railway between Ethiopia and Djibouti, which China built, look like they were taken from China. They might be able to work fast by not doing things like checking the impact on the environment.

Because of this, Chinese companies can finish a big project before the next election. This gives the current leaders a chance to take pictures cutting ribbons right before people vote. Western companies are usually not as quick. Someone from a European engineering company said that it can be hard for Western companies to even start a project.

It is also worth noting here that Chinese companies often win contracts because they are more competitive, says a study by Brookings, an American think-tank that looked at projects financed by the World Bank. Western companies complain that some Chinese projects are poorly built, and there are stories of roads that fall apart after a few years. However, another study by the China-Africa Research Initiative at Johns Hopkins University found no difference in the quality of work between Chinese and Western contractors on infrastructure projects funded by the World Bank. The World Bank is strict about fair bidding and high construction standards, so companies bidding on its projects need to be on their best behavior.

In many cases, Chinese companies get the work because there is no competition. Many Western companies avoid Africa because they see it as too risky. And indeed, there are risks. Property rights are often weak, and there is a lot of fraud. One Western manager described trying to buy land and later finding out that the people they were negotiating with didn't actually own it.

These challenges explain why many infrastructure projects fail before they even begin. McKinsey, a consultancy firm, estimates that 80% of infrastructure projects in Africa never progress past the planning stage, and only one in ten successfully secure the necessary funds.

Corruption is another major problem. In the past, Western companies would often pay bribes to win contracts in Africa and other places. A survey conducted in 1999-2000 found that construction companies spent 1-2% of their revenue on bribes, according to a World Bank report by Charles Kenny. He also noted that in 2005, 40% of international construction companies reported losing contracts because a competitor had paid a bribe.

Today, anti-corruption laws in the United States and Britain are stricter and apply regardless of where the bribery occurs. Western companies are now more reluctant to pay bribes, although some still get into trouble. For instance, in 2017, Halliburton, an American company, was fined $29.2 million for violations in Angola, and the World Bank has imposed sanctions on a subsidiary of Bouygues, a French construction company, due to irregularities in contracts.

However, a Western project manager complains that some African officials don't care about anti-corruption laws. They still expect bribes in the form of "brown envelopes" for ministers and permanent secretaries. The leader of a Western mining company is frustrated because Chinese firms have more freedom to operate. They can work without licenses and even without permission from the government in places like the Central African Republic, as long as they have paid off local warlords.

Some Western companies still try to compete for business in Africa. However, not all of them have positive experiences. In 2017, Bechtel, a large American construction company, won a $2.7 billion contract to build a major road in Kenya. But then the Kenyan government changed its mind and asked for a loan instead of upfront payment for the road. When the American government refused, Kenya lost interest in the project.

Another example involves GBM Engineering, a British company that won a $2 billion contract to build a dam in Kenya. They got the contract because five Chinese competitors failed to submit their bids on time. However, six months later, GBM's contract was canceled due to allegations of Chinese pressure on the government board that awarded the tender. GBM appealed five times, but their appeals were ignored. The case is still going through the courts, and the dam, like Bechtel's highway, remains unbuilt.

Not all Western executives are disappointed, though. More and more French companies are now working together with Chinese companies. Initially, these relationships were informal, with French and Chinese firms separately working on the same project, often with the French companies handling the more complicated tasks.

In recent times, the collaboration between France and China has become more formal. For example, CMA CGM, a French logistics company, has entered into partnerships with firms like China Harbour Engineering Company. Sometimes French companies want Chinese partners because they can provide state-backed financing that is not available in Paris. In other cases, formal collaborations emerge after years of informal work together. According to Deloitte, in 2020, around 15% of all major infrastructure projects were being built by consortia consisting of both Western and Chinese firms.

China's Chuckles

China's involvement in African infrastructure is a double-edged sword. It's like a storm that brings both destruction and blessings. On one hand, it has burdened countries with overwhelming debt and fueled corruption, creating projects that will never make a dime, just like Kenya's unprofitable railway. However, as time goes by, the scandals will fade away, and the debts will be left unpaid. What remains will be China's lasting legacy: the much-needed roads and ports that Africa desperately requires for its economic growth.

Interestingly, China's actions are unintentionally attracting Western money by igniting the fears of Western leaders, like throwing fuel on a fire. The British government, for example, recently announced that its development arm would invest $1 billion in Kenyan infrastructure. Additionally, a British company will construct a brand-new railway hub in central Nairobi. Furthermore, the g7 group of countries launched the Build Back Better World initiative last year, shamelessly imitating China's strategy. All of these developments should create more opportunities for construction companies from various nations, whether they are Western, Chinese, or, if luck is on their side, even African firms.

 

Notes

 

Albert, E. (2017, July 12). China in Africa. Retrieved from Council on Foreign Relations: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/china-africa

Cassin, R. L. (2017, July 27). Halliburton Pays $29 Million to Settle Angola FCPA Offenses. Retrieved from The FCPA Blog: https://fcpablog.com/2017/07/27/halliburton-pays-29-million-to-settle-angola-fcpa-offenses/#:~:text=Halliburton%20Company%20paid%20the%20SEC,friend%20of%20an%20Angolan%20official.

Deloitte Global. (2019, March 22). If You Want to Prosper, Consider building Roads: China’s Role in African Infrastructure and Capital Projects. Retrieved from Deloitte Global: https://www.deloitte.com/global/en/our-thinking/insights/industry/government-public-services/china-investment-africa-infrastructure-development.html

GCR. (2018, April 10). British Engineer Wins $2bn Kenya Dam After Legal Wrangle. Retrieved from Global Construction Review: https://www.globalconstructionreview.com/british-engineer-wins-2bn-kenya-dam-after-legal-wr/

Gelpern, A., Horn, S., Morris, S., Parks, B., & Trebesch, C. (2021). How China Lends: A Rare Look into 100 Debt Contracts with Foreign Governments. Retrieved from Aid Data: https://docs.aiddata.org/reports/how-china-lends.html

Kenny, C. (2007). Construction, Corruption, and Developing Countries . World Bank Policy Research Working Paper , World Bank. Retrieved from https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/571281468137721953/pdf/wps4271.pdf

Lakmeeharan, K., Manji, Q., Nyairo, R., & Pöltner, H. (2020, March 6). Solving Africa’s infrastructure paradox. Retrieved from McKinsey & Company: https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/operations/our-insights/solving-africas-infrastructure-paradox

Reuters. (2022, February 10). EU Earmarks 150 Billion Euros for Investment in Africa. Retrieved from Reuters - Africa: https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/eu-earmarks-150-billion-euros-investment-africa-2022-02-10/

Stein, P. (2021, August 25). China in Africa: The Role of Trade, Investments, and Loans Amidst Shifting Geopolitical Ambitions. Retrieved from Observer Research Foundation: https://www.orfonline.org/research/china-in-africa/

The Economist. (2022, February 19). Chasing the Dragon: How Chinese Firms Have Dominated African Infrastructure. Retrieved from https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/how-chinese-firms-have-dominated-african-infrastructure/21807721

The Zimbabwean. (2023, June 22). How Zimbabwe’s new Parliament Symbolises China’s Chequebook Diplomacy Approach to Africa. Retrieved from https://www.thezimbabwean.co/2020/01/how-zimbabwes-new-parliament-symbolises-chinas-chequebook-diplomacy-approach-to-africa/

Warters, N. (2021, April 28). AidData’s Work on Chinese Lending Study Draws Attention from Governments and Media Outlets Worldwide. Retrieved from W&M News Archive - AidData: https://www.wm.edu/news/stories/2021/aiddatas-work-on-chinese-lending-study-draws-attention-from-governments-and-media-outlets-worldwide.php

Wiegert, J., & Schneidman, W. (2018, April 16). Competing in Africa: China, the European Union, and the United States. Retrieved from Brookings Institution: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/africa-in-focus/2018/04/16/competing-in-africa-china-the-european-union-and-the-united-states/

Trump’s New Indictment: Can He Outfox the Courts?

 

The US establishment's obsession with indicting Trump is a puzzle wrapped in a mystery. But Trump may dance his way to victory once more, eluding their grasp like a slippery eel, if it goes to trial. A Florida jury would hear the case since that is where the special counsel sought the indictment. In the conservative-learning state, Trump would need only one juror to oppose his conviction for there to be a mistrial.

With the release of a slew of charges by the Department of Justice (DOJ), the end of a protracted investigation into the alleged removal of sensitive information from the White House, Trump finds himself at the epicenter of a legal storm once again. This humiliating distinction is an unusual chapter in American history in which a former president has become entangled in the complicated web of the law. As the curtain rises on this high-stakes story, the country waits with bated breath for the result of this legal crisis that threatens to define Trump's legacy.

The indictment's specifics were revealed in a 49-page document. The claims are breathtaking. Prosecutors claim that Mr Trump placed sensitive information, including those pertaining to national security, in boxes in an egregiously careless and negligent manner. They were discovered scattered throughout the former president's Florida residence, including a shower stall, a restroom, an office, a bedroom, and—most ostentatiously—the stage of a ballroom where receptions and meetings were often held. Mr. Trump's attorneys said that the records were all kept in a storage closet.

The documents were confiscated in August, when FBI agents executed a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago to collect highly top  secret materials that Mr Trump had failed to return despite several demands. The unusual behavior shows that Mr. Trump's arrogance may be to blame for his new pain. An important  defense Mr Trump provided at the time—that as president, he had the authority to declassify the records by fiat—is at odds with an audio tape acquired by prosecutors in 2021, in which he appears to concede that some files in his possession were still secret.  During a conversation with two authors working on a book about an aide, Mr. Trump stated that the fact that he has this type of power completely wins his case, even though the papers are highly confidential, that is, they are top secret.

The Department of Justice has traditionally advised prosecutors to avoid investigating or charging candidates for public office in the run-up to an election, lest they damage public trust in the rule of law. The attorney-general, Merrick Garland, instructed his department in 2022 to be especially mindful of preserving the department's reputation for impartiality, neutrality, and nonpartisanship. As a result, he appointed an independent special counsel, Jack Smith, to handle two investigations involving Mr Trump: his handling of sensitive materials and his role in the January 6th, 2021, Capitol Hill violence.

Mr Smith and the department would be severely embarrassed if a conviction was not obtained. Mr. Trump and his followers argue that the indictment is only the latest incarnation of a "witch-hunt" carried out by a weaponized deep state. Mr. Trump argued that Joe Biden has troves of classified documents from his time as vice president, which is a far more serious breach. Both former Vice President Mike Pence (now a Republican primary contender) and former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton had sensitive materials in their possession while out of office.

Indictment charges include, but are not limited to: keeping classified documents without authorization and possibly sharing them with others; conspiring to obstruct justice by resisting requests to return documents; putting pressure on individuals to refuse to testify against him or to make things up; concealing documents and making false statements. All of these charges carry significant prison sentences. In total, Mr. Smith is accusing Mr. Trump of breaking 37 federal criminal laws, one of which being the Espionage Act, which was passed in 1917 during the first world war.

Those who watched Mr. Trump appear in court in New York less than three months ago on state charges related to his alleged hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels, an adult-film actress who says she had a tryst with him, will find the scene in Miami, where he will be arraigned in court on June 13th, to be very familiar. The arraignment will take place in the same court that Mr. Trump appeared in in New York. The former president will enter a not guilty plea once more, and he will be given bail and released pending a trial date that will be set many months down the road. Because he appointed Aileen Cannon to her position as a federal judge, he will be the first person in the history of the United States to face a criminal process in front of such a court.

The political repercussions are rather foreseeable, despite the unprecedented spectacle of a former president being brought into a federal courtroom. After all, this is not the first time that Mr. Trump has been the subject of a judicial investigation, nor is it the first time that he has been indicted for a crime. The Republican Party looks to be coming together to protect him, much like they did in the past, even if some members of the party are competing with him for the presidential nomination in 2024. The incumbent governor of Florida and one of his most formidable opponents, Ron DeSantis, was driven to speak up in his support.  He stated on his Twitter account that the arming of federal law enforcement posed a grave danger to a nation that values its freedom. Tim Scott, a senator from South Carolina who is also running for nomination, has remarked that the legal system that exists in the United States now is one in which the scales are tilted in a particular direction. These statements were made by both candidates before they were aware of what was contained in the indictment.

 

A Comedy of Errors

The last eight years of Trumpism have distorted the Republican Party to such an extent that an onslaught of charges and legal processes may actually assist the former president obtain the nomination, rather than hurting him. It is heretical to suggest that the president may have broken the law and could be fairly prosecuted for it; the price for thinking it aloud still looks to be excommunication. If the party was willing to forgive him for his acts that led to the attack on the Capitol, it is difficult to see what might break the allegiance of his supporters. It is unlikely that a finding of civil culpability for sexual abuse, nor allegations of financial crimes over hush-money payments, could break their loyalty to him.

Keeping highly classified information and deceiving federal officials who wanted to get them is a new level of malfeasance, and it may place Mr. Trump in greater legal risk than the other cases combined. However, the former president's following may be unfazed by any accusations made against their political hero.

It is possible that local prosecutors in Georgia may add conspiring to undermine the election process to the long list of accusations that have been brought against Mr. Trump. Throughout the course of the presidential primary, the candidate will continue to face trials and court dates, which will evoke the compassion of voters and force his opponents within his own party to spend less time attacking him and more time condemning the purported persecution. Due to the fact that the criminal trial in New York is scheduled to begin on March 25th, 2024, it will cast a shadow over the most important first two months of the primary season.

However, there is really little room for debate on the fact that Mr. Trump's most recent and severe legal exposure puts his chances of winning back the White House in jeopardy. Although it is exceedingly doubtful that Mr. Trump will be locked up before November 2024 due to the sluggish speed at which American courts operate, the impending indictments that helped him in the primary would be liabilities in a general election rematch against Mr. Biden. There is no reason for moderate voters who are already turned off by Mr. Trump's behavior in office (and the Republican effort to restrict abortion) to view him as the safer and saner option when he is proposing to rid the deep state of his persecutors.

On the other hand, Trump does have certain plans under his sleeve that have a chance of being successful. It is possible for his legal team to dispute the testimony of witnesses, place blame on third parties, or argue that he was merely following the advice of his legal team and did not mean to infringe the law. Since the special counsel's office seeking the indictment was located in Florida, a jury from that state would hear the case in the event that it went to trial. In order for there to be a mistrial in the state that prioritizes conservatism and education, there just needs to be one juror who is against convicting Trump. There is also the possibility that his legal team will make requests to have the trial delayed until after the election in November 2024. Legal scholars dispute on whether or not Donald Trump may pardon himself if his case is successful.

One thing is for certain: the Trump and US establishment legal circus has arrived in town, and they're putting on a display that even the best acrobats would envy! This spectacle has us all on the edge of our seats, with jaw-dropping twists, mind-boggling debates, and blame-shifting gymnastics that would make a contortionist happy. Who needs Netflix when we've got this never-ending narrative of legal wrangling? Anyone for popcorn? Keep an eye on the center ring, where Trump and the US establishment are juggling truth, justice, and the American way. It's a spectacle more amusing than a bucket of monkeys, and we can't wait to see what wild act they'll come up with next!

 

 

 

 

 

Notes

 

Garver, R. (2023, June 9). Republicans Rally Around Trump After Indictment . Retrieved from VOA News: https://www.voanews.com/a/republicans-rally-around-trump-after-indictment-/7130999.html

Queen, J. (2023, June 10). Analysis: Trump Faces Difficult Odds in Classified-Documents Case. Retrieved from Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-faces-difficult-odds-classified-documents-case-2023-06-10/

The Economist. (2023, June 9). United States of America v Donald J. Trump: Donald Trump is in His Most Serious Legal Trouble Yet. Retrieved from https://www.economist.com/united-states/2023/06/09/donald-trump-is-in-his-most-serious-legal-trouble-yet

The United States Department of Justice. (2022, November 18). Appointment of a Special Counsel. Retrieved from Office of Public Affairs Press Release: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/appointment-special-counsel-0

Vlamis, K. (2023, January 15). The Ways Federal Officials From Richard Nixon to Donald Trump — and Now Joe Biden — Have Been Accused of Mishandling Government Records. Retrieved from Business Insider: https://www.businessinsider.com/officials-accused-of-mishandling-records-trump-hillary-clinton-nixon-2022-8

 

 

Forest Fires in US East Coast and Canada: Blame the 2015 Cottonwood Ruling

 

The Cottonwood decision and the environmental resistance to forest thinning fuels the raging fires in Canada and the U.S East Coast.  As the Forest Service remains hostage to the left, and the smoky taste of congressional inaction lingers, the East Coasters are grasping for a breath.  

The smoke tendrils have made their way to the East Coast of the United States, providing a bittersweet taste of the West's wildfire devastation. Perhaps the persistent haze will kindle a burning sense of urgency in Congress to overturn the catastrophic Cottonwood ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is impeding progress toward better forest management.

As smoke blankets the East Coast, its presence is expected to linger for days, possibly longer if the Canadian flames burn unchecked. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau conveniently blames climate change, using it as a handy scapegoat, disguising the underlying inadequacies of government policies that worsen the havoc inflicted by natural disasters.

Fires that have long destroyed Canada's boreal woods, ornamented with conifers, birch, and poplar, have become less frequent over the years, like a smokescreen. However, the growing stockpile of timber fuel has ignited the possibility of a record-breaking year in terms of acres burned. Environmentalists, acting as reluctant firemen, have fought critical forest thinning, adding fuel to the flames of these disastrous fires.

 

Legislative Lamentations

For thousands of years, fires have basically "danced" through Canada's boreal forests, providing a blazing stage. While the number of fires has been decreasing since the early 1990s, the year 2020 saw the fewest infernos in three decades. Yet, beneath the surface, the acreage burned continues to spread like a raging wildfire, fed by an accumulation of timber ready to catch fire. As the year progresses, it threatens to break records and roast the land.

The main foe fueling the fires in the fiery battleground of Canada and the United States is environmentalists' opposition to reducing overgrown woods. While the government has become more cognizant of forest management issues, employees with the US Forest Service are still constrained by the Cottonwood judgment from 2015. This order, like a smoky haze, requires the EPA to cooperate with other entities on land management plans whenever a new endangered species is identified or a "critical habitat" is declared.

With over 1,300 species on the verge of extinction, environmental advocacy groups actively push for new designations, burying forest officials in paperwork and delaying critical management initiatives. This collision of opinions even sparks disagreements inside the judicial system, as the Tenth Circuit judicial of Appeals disagrees with Cottonwood's criteria. As a result, the Forest Service is pulled between various management systems, resulting in a perplexing dance among Ninth Circuit states.

While a temporary solution was introduced in the form of a 2018 appropriations bill provision that provided a five-year exemption from Cottonwood's consultation requirement, this reprieve evaporated with the approach of spring. The Forest Service becomes a hostage to the left once more, mired in a maze of bureaucracy and legal entanglements. Sens. Steve Daines, Jon Tester, James Risch, Mike Crapo, and Angus King have banded together to support legislation to reverse Cottonwood's negative consequences. Their passionate messages to President Biden emphasize how this judgement fosters frequent litigation, hinders essential animal habitat and forestry projects, and diverts valuable federal resources away from critical conservation efforts.

The rider's expiration has now put a shadow over more than 100 forest plans, necessitating a new round of consultation. While there was a glimmer of light in the form of a bipartisan Senate remedy passing the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the White House's pleas were met with the sound of a falling tree in the vast forest. Members of Congress from Western states, however, are all too familiar with this shroud of uncertainty as smoke fills the halls of power in Washington, D.C. In this uncertain picture, there is a glimmer of hope that it will serve as a wake-up call for President Biden to the fundamental underlying problem.

The flames that lick the sky hold a figurative mirror in the conflict between nature's fury and human intervention, showing the need for rapid and decisive response. Will Congress embrace the opportunity to overrule Cottonwood's verdict while smoke signals dance on the horizon, or will the flames rage on, consuming the forests we cherish? Only time will tell if the embers of change will light a road to better forest management.

The fate of our woods is at stake at this vital juncture. Once again, the flames are a metaphor for the urgency we face, compelling us to act quickly to prevent greater devastation. The road ahead is obvious, and the moment to take action is now. Congress must seize the opportunity to overrule Cottonwood's decision, put out the opposition fires, and usher in a new era of responsible forest management. The smoke signals are reaching out for our attention. Let us take their message to heart and save the natural treasures that tie us to the world.

 

 

 

 

 

Notes

 

Downey, H. (2022, August 30). The Cottonwood Fix Means a Return to Healthy Forests. Retrieved from Frontier Institute: https://frontierinstitute.org/the-cottonwood-fix-means-a-return-to-healthy-forests/

Montana Public Radio. (2017, October 24). Senators Draft Legislation To Reverse 'Cottonwood Decision'. Retrieved from https://www.mtpr.org/montana-news/2017-10-24/senators-draft-legislation-to-reverse-cottonwood-decision

Voice of America. (2023, June 8). US East Coast Continues to Grapple with Wildfire Smoke Billowing from Canada. Retrieved from VOA News: https://www.voanews.com/a/us-east-coast-continues-to-grapple-with-wildfire-smoke-billowing-from-canada-/7129265.html

Wall Street Journal. (2023, June 8). A Smoke Signal on Forest-Fire Management. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/forest-fires-cottonwood-decision-ninth-circuit-forest-management-f3ae0926?mod=opinion_lead_pos3

 

 

Artificial Intelligence May Not Take Your Job After All

 

 

While artificial intelligence will automate certain tasks and job functions, the human capacity for creativity, critical thinking, and emotional intelligence ensures that many jobs will remain relevant and irreplaceable.

 With the rise of programs converting text to convincing videos and the imminent integration of OpenAI's bots into consumer products, the boundaries of artificial intelligence’s (AI's) impact on daily life are expanding rapidly. The age of generative artificial intelligence (AI) has well and truly come. OpenAI's robots, which use technology called large-language-model (LLM), got things going in November. Now, hardly a day goes by without a new development that blows our minds. A fake Drake and The Weeknd sang on a song made by AI that recently shook the music business. Content made by programs that turn text into video is pretty compelling. Soon, customer services like Expedia, Instacart, and OpenTable will connect to OpenAI's bots. This will let people order food or book a vacation by typing text into a box. A presentation that was recently leaked, which is said to have been made by a Google worker, shows that the tech giant is worried about how easy it is for competitors to make progress. There will likely be a lot more to come.

The advancement of AI brings up a lot of important questions. The question that is easiest to answer is often one of the most important: What exactly does this imply for the state of the economy? A great number of people have really high hopes. According to recent research conducted by the bank Goldman Sachs, widespread AI adoption could eventually drive a 7% or almost $7trn increase in annual global GDP over a ten-year period. This growth would take place over the course of the next decade. Academic studies suggest a gain of three percentage points in yearly labor-productivity growth in enterprises that implement the technology. This would represent a significant increase in salaries that would be compounded over a number of years. According to a research by Tom Davidson of Open Philanthropy, an organization that makes grants, there is a greater than 10% possibility that explosive growth could occur at some point in this century. Explosive growth in this regard is defined as increases  in global output of more than 30% a year. A handful of economists have entertained the idea that global earnings could one day reach an endless level.

However, financial markets seem to indicate results that are rather less dramatic. In the past year, the performance of the share prices of companies active in AI has lagged behind that of the worldwide average, despite the fact that these share prices have increased during the past few months. The interest rates are still another piece of the puzzle. If people believed that technological advancement was going to make everyone affluent tomorrow, interest rates would increase since there would be less of a need to save money. According to studies conducted by Basil Halperin of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and colleagues, inflation-adjusted rates and eventual GDP growth are closely connected with one another. However, ever since the AI hype began in November 2022, long-term interest rates have been on the decline. They continue to be quite low when compared to previous standards. In plain terms, financial markets are not expecting a high probability of AI-induced growth acceleration, on at least a 30-to-50-year time horizon.

To figure out which group of researchers in this area is right, it helps to look at how technology has changed in the past. This is good news for businesses. For one thing, it's hard to say that a single new tool has ever changed the economy a lot, either for the better or for the worse. Even the industrial revolution of the late 1700s, which many people at the time think was caused by the invention of the spinning jenny, was really caused by a number of different things happening at the same time. These included increasing use of coal, firmer property rights, the emergence of a scientific ethos, and much more besides.

 In the 1960s, Robert Fogel wrote about the railroads in the United States. This work would later win him the Nobel Prize in economics. Many people thought that the railroad changed America's future, changing it from a farming society to an industrial powerhouse. Fogel found that it had a very small effect because it replaced technologies, like canals, that would have done just as well. If railways had never been invented, America would have hit the same level of income per person on March 31, 1890, instead of January 1, 1890.

No one can say for sure where AI, a system that is inherently unpredictable, will take humans. Runaway growth is not impossible, and neither is a standstill in technology. But you can still think about what might happen. And, at least so far, it looks like Fogel's railways will be a good guide. Think about monopolies, labor markets, and productivity.

A new technology" can sometimes give vast economic power to a small group of people. John D. Rockefeller won at processing oil, and Henry Ford won at making cars. Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg are two of the most powerful people in the world today. Many experts think that the AI business will soon make a lot of money. In a recent paper, analysts at Goldman predict that, in the best case, generative AI could add about $430 billion to annual global enterprise-software sales. Their math is based on the idea that each of the world's 1.1 billion office workers will buy a few AI gizmos for a total of $400.

Any company would be happy to get some of this money. But $430 billion doesn't change the big picture of the economy. Assume that all of the income goes into profits, which isn't likely, and that all of these profits are made in the U.S., which is a little more likely. Even so, the ratio of the country's business profits before taxes to its GDP would rise from 12% to 14%. That is a lot higher than the long-term average, but not any higher than in the second quarter of 2021.

One organization—possibly Open AI—might receive these proceeds. When an industry has significant fixed costs or when it is difficult to switch to competitors, monopolies frequently develop. Rockefeller's oil was the only option available to customers, and they were unable to make their own. There are certain monopolistic traits in generative AI. One of Open AI's chatbots, GPT-4, reportedly cost more than $100 million to train, which is money that not many businesses have on hand. A lot of proprietary knowledge about the data used to train the models also exists, in addition to user feedback.

However, there are slim chances of one business dominating the entire AI sector. It is more likely that a small number of large businesses will compete with one another, as is the case in the grocery, search engine, and airline industries. Since all AI products employ the same models, none are truly unique. This makes switching from one to another easier for a customer. Additionally, the models' computing power is comparatively generic. Since a lot of the code and helpful hints are publicly available online, amateurs can create their own models—often with startlingly impressive outcomes.

In general, generative AI doesn't seem to have any systemic moats at the moment. A similar conclusion is drawn in the current leak that is allegedly from Google: The barrier to entry for training and experimentation has decreased from the complete output of a major research organization to one individual, one evening, and a powerful laptop. A few generative-AI companies now have a market value of over $1 billion. The largest corporation to date to benefit the most from the new AI era is not even an AI firm. Data center income is growing at Nvidia, a computing firm that powers AI models.

 Doomsday or comedy show?

Despite the possibility that generative AI won't produce a new class of robber barons, for many people, that is still a cold comfort. They are more worried about their own financial future, particularly whether their job will disappear. There are many dreadful forecasts. Numerous sources predict that at least 10% of the work tasks performed by at least 80% of the US workforce could be impacted by the introduction of LLMS. According to studies from several periodicals, the professions of legal services, accounting, and travel agencies  are among those most likely to experience disruption.

Economists have made doomsday forecasts in the past.  Many people in the 2000s questioned how outsourcing might affect jobs in developed nations. In a widely read report published in 2013, two Oxford University researchers predicted that technology would eliminate 47% of American jobs over the next few years. Others argued that even in the absence of widespread unemployment, there would be a hollowing out of the labor market, where rewarding, well-paying occupations would vanish and be replaced with mindless, poorly paid jobs.

What eventually happened caught everyone off guard. The average unemployment rate in the rich countries has roughly decreased by half during the past ten years. The proportion of people in working age who are employed is at an all-time high. The least unemployment is seen in nations with strong levels of automation and robots, such Japan, Singapore, and South Korea. According to a recent analysis by the American Bureau of Labor Statistics, jobs identified as at risk from new technologies did not exhibit any general tendency toward notably rapid job loss in recent years. Evidence of hollowing out, if any, is mixed. The 2010s saw an increase in work satisfaction metrics. The poorest Americans have had faster pay growth than the richest Americans throughout the majority of the last ten years.

It might be different this time. Chegg, a company that provides homework help, recently saw its share price drop by 50% when it acknowledged ChatGPT was having an impact on their new customer growth rate. Big IT corporation IBM's CEO stated that the company anticipates pausing hiring for positions that AI may eventually replace. But are they early warning signals of an impending tsunami? Maybe not.

Imagine a scenario in which more than 50% of the tasks covered by AI are automated. Or consider that job losses are based on the percentage of jobs that are mechanized across the entire economy. According to estimates provided by various media, this would in either case result in a net loss of  about 15% or more of American jobs. Some people might relocate to a sector like hospitality where there is a dearth of workers. However, a significant increase in the unemployment rate would undoubtedly follow—possibly matching the 15% briefly attained in America during the worst of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020.

However, this scenario is unlikely to occur because history indicates that job destruction occurs far more gradually. To replace human operators, the automated telephone switching system was created in 1892. The Bell System didn't set up its first fully automated office until 1921. The number of American telephone operators increased even after this landmark, reaching a peak of about 350,000 in the middle of the 20th century. Despite the invention of automation nine decades prior, the profession did not (largely) go out of existence until the 1980s. In fewer than 90 years, AI will completely transform the work market: LLMS are simple to use, and many experts are surprised by how quickly people have adapted ChatGPT into their daily lives. However, the same factors that led to the delayed uptake of technology in previous organizations still hold true now.

There are  plenty of other published evidence whose argument in this area focuses on regulation. The pace of technical advancement is typically pitifully slow in sectors of the economy where the government is heavily involved, such as education and healthcare. Absence of competition dampens motivation to progress. Additionally, governments may have objectives for public policy that conflict with increased effectiveness, such as maximizing employment levels. Additionally, unionization is more prevalent in these industries, and unions are effective at preventing job losses.

There are numerous examples of these. Although there is technology to partially or completely replace train drivers, for instance, they are nevertheless paid close to twice the national median on London's publicly run Underground network. Passengers  must repeatedly fill out paper forms for government organizations with their personal information. Real-life cops are still employed in San Francisco, the epicenter of the AI boom, to control traffic during rush hour.

 When Bots Go Wild

 The majority of AI-threatened jobs are in heavily regulated sectors. According to published evidence, 14 of the top 20 occupations most vulnerable to AI are teaching positions, with foreign-language instructors near the top and geographers in a slightly stronger position. However, only the most courageous government would replace teachers with AI. Think of the headlines. The same holds true for police officers and anti-crime AI. The fact that Italy has already temporarily blocked ChatGPT over privacy concerns, and France, Germany, and Ireland are reportedly mulling the option, demonstrates how concerned governments are about the job-destroying effects of artificial intelligence.

Perhaps, over time, governments will permit the replacement of some jobs. However, the delay will allow the economy to continue doing what it does best: creating new categories of jobs as others are eliminated. By reducing production costs, new technology can increase demand for products and services, thereby boosting jobs that are difficult to automate. The conclusion of a report published in 2020 by MIT's David Autor and colleagues was startling. Approximately 60% of American jobs did not exist in 1940.  The year 2000 saw the addition of fingernail technician to the census. Five years ago, solar photovoltaic electrician was introduced. The AI economy will likely create occupations that are currently unimaginable.

Small labor-market effects are expected to have a small impact on productivity—the third element. Electricity was first used in companies and homes in America near the end of the 19th  century. However, there was no production boom until the end of World War I. In the 1970s, the personal computer was invented. This time, the productivity surge came faster—but it still felt slow at the moment. An economist named Robert Solow famously said in 1987 that the computer age was everywhere except the productivity statistics.

The world is still waiting for a spike in production due to recent advances. Smartphones have been widely used for a decade, billions of people have access to ultrafast internet, and many professionals now work from home when it is convenient for them. Official polls reveal that well over a tenth of American employees now work for companies that use AI of some kind, while unofficial studies show even higher numbers. However, global productivity growth remains subdued.

AI has the potential to significantly increase productivity in various industries. Erik Brynjolfsson of Stanford University and colleagues investigated customer-service representatives in their research paper. The availability of an AI tool increases the number of issues handled per hour by 14% on average. Researchers may also become more efficient as a result of GPT-X, which may provide them with a limitless number of almost-free research helpers. Others expect that AI will eliminate administrative inefficiencies in health care, hence lowering costs.

However, there are many things that AI cannot do. Construction and farming, which account for around 20% of the rich-world GDP, are two examples. A LLM is useless to someone harvesting asparagus. It may be useful to a plumber who is fixing a leaky tap: a widget could recognize the tap, diagnose the problem, and recommend remedies. However, the plumber must still perform the physical labor. So it's difficult to imagine blue-collar labor being significantly more productive in a few years. The same is true for industries where human-to-human contact is an essential component of the service, such as hospitality and medical care.

AI is also powerless to address the single most significant impediment to rich-world productivity growth: misfiring planning systems. People cannot live and work where they are most efficient when city sizes are limited and housing expenses are high. No matter how many amazing new ideas your society has, they are rendered functionally useless if they are not built in a timely manner. It is up to governments to silence not in my back yard (NIMBYS) protesters. Technology is both here and there. The same is true for electricity, where permitting and infrastructure maintain costs unbearably high.

It equally possible that the AI economy will become less productive. Consider some current technology. Smartphones provide for immediate communication, but they may also be a source of distraction. Email keeps you linked 24 hours a day, seven days a week, which might make it difficult to concentrate. According to the best available research, the more time spent on email each day, the poorer perceived productivity.  Some managers now worry that working from home, which was once viewed as a productivity booster, provides too many individuals with an excuse to slack off.

The use of generative AI may reduce productivity. What if AI can generate entertainment that is exactly customized to your every need, for example? Furthermore, few people have considered the ramifications of a machine that can generate massive amounts of text in an instant. For a NIMBY facing a planning application, GPT-4 is a blessing. He can write a well-written 1,000-page complaint in five minutes. Someone must then respond to it. Spam emails will become more difficult to identify. Fraud cases could skyrocket. Banks will have to spend more money on avoiding attacks and compensating victims.

Battle of Words

In a world with a lot of AI, there will be more lawyers. In the 1970s, you could make a multimillion-dollar deal on 15 pages because retyping was such a pain. AI will let us cover the 1,000 most likely edge cases in the first draft, and then the parties will fight about it for weeks. In America, a good rule of thumb is that you shouldn't sue for damages unless you want $250,000 or more in pay, since it costs that much to go to court. Now, the costs of going to court could drop to almost nothing. Teachers and writers will have to check everything they read to make sure it wasn't written by an AI. OpenAI has put out a tool that makes this possible. So, it is giving the world a way to deal with a problem that its own technology has caused.

AI could change the world in ways that we can't even think of right now. But this is not the same as flipping the economy on its head. Fogel wrote that his case wasn't meant to disprove the idea that the railroad was a key part of America's growth in the 19th century. Instead, it was meant to show that the evidence for this idea is not nearly as strong as is usually thought. When studying generative AI in the middle of the 21st century, a future Nobel Prize winner may well come to the same result.

The fear of job displacement due to AI automation is prevalent, but history shows that job destruction happens slowly. Regulatory barriers and heavily regulated sectors, like education and healthcare, may delay the replacement of certain jobs. Additionally, new technology creates new types of jobs that cannot be imagined today.

 

 

Notes

 

Autor, D., Mindell, D., & Reynolds, E. (2020). The Work of the Future: Building Better Jobs in an Age of Intelligent Machines. Retrieved from MIT: https://workofthefuture.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2020-Final-Report4.pdf

Brynjolfsson, E., Li , D., & Raymond, L. R. (2023). Generative AI at Work. National Bureau of Economic Analysis - Working Paper. doi:10.3386/w31161

Cohan, P. (2023, May 25). Nvidia Stock Soars As CEO Jensen Huang Cites Generative AI Edge. Retrieved from Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2023/05/25/nvidia-stock-soars-as-ceo-jensen-huang-cites-generative-ai-edge/?sh=98562a66eec9

Davidson, T. (2021, June 25). Could Advanced AI Drive Explosive Economic Growth? Retrieved from Open Philanthropy : https://www.openphilanthropy.org/research/could-advanced-ai-drive-explosive-economic-growth/

Donadel, A. (2023, March 24). College Professors Face the Highest Exposure to AI Tools, Study Finds. Retrieved from University Business: https://universitybusiness.com/college-professors-face-the-highest-exposure-to-ai-tools-study-finds/

Fogel, R. W. (1964). Railroads and American Economic Growth: Essays in Econometric History. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press .

Halperin, B., Chow, T., & Mazlis, J. Z. (2023, January 10). AGI and the EMH: Markets are Not Expecting Aligned or Unaligned AI in the Next 30 Years. Retrieved from Effective Altruism Forum: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/8c7LycgtkypkgYjZx/agi-and-the-emh-markets-are-not-expecting-aligned-or

Krishnan, M., Mischke, J., & Remes, J. (2018, June 4). Is the Solow Paradox back? Retrieved from McKinsey Quarterly: https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/is-the-solow-paradox-back

McCallum, S. (2023, April 1). ChatGPT Banned in Italy Over Privacy Concerns. Retrieved from BBC News: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-65139406

McKendrick, J. (2023, May 26). Most Jobs Soon To Be ‘Influenced’ By Artificial Intelligence, Research Out Of OpenAI And University Of Pennsylvania Suggests. Retrieved from Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/joemckendrick/2023/03/26/most-jobs-soon-to-be-influenced-by-artificial-intelligence-research-out-of-openai-and-university-of-pennsylvania-suggests/?sh=693029ab73c7

Moy, C. (2023, January 30). Spinning Jenny: Who Invented the Spinning Jenny? Retrieved from The Economic Historian: https://economic-historian.com/2022/07/spinning-jenny/

National Geographic. (2023). Industrial Revolution and Technology. Retrieved from https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/industrial-revolution-and-technology/

Osborne, M., & Frey, C. B. (2013). Automation and the Future of Work – Understanding the Numbers. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114, 254-280.

Patel, D., & Ahmad, A. (2023, May 4). Google "We Have No Moat, And Neither Does OpenAI". Retrieved from Semi-Analysis: https://www.semianalysis.com/p/google-we-have-no-moat-and-neither

Prakash, P. (2023, May 2). Chegg’s Shares Tumbled Nearly 50% After the Edtech Company Said Its Customers are Using ChatGPT Instead of Paying for its Study Tools. Retrieved from Forbes: https://fortune.com/2023/05/02/chegg-shares-tumble-students-fleeing-chatgpt-a-i/

Price, D. A. (2019). Econ Focus: Goodbye, Operator. Retrieved from https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/econ_focus/2019/q4/economic_history

The Economist. (2023, May 7). Beyond the Hype: Your Job is (Probably) Safe from Artificial Intelligence. Retrieved from https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2023/05/07/your-job-is-probably-safe-from-artificial-intelligence

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2022, July). Growth Trends for Selected Occupations Considered at Risk From Automation. Retrieved from Monthly Labor Review: https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2022/article/growth-trends-for-selected-occupations-considered-at-risk-from-automation.htm

Veltman, C. (2023, April 21). When You Realize Your Favorite New Song Was Written and Performed by ... AI. Retrieved from NPR: https://www.npr.org/2023/04/21/1171032649/ai-music-heart-on-my-sleeve-drake-the-weeknd#:~:text=Press-,'Heart%20on%20my%20Sleeve'%20uses%20AI%20to%20simulate%20Drake%20and,raises%20legal%20and%20ethical%20questions.