DDOS

Several scumbags hacked my computer via this page.

To scumbag hackers : You want to know something, just ask me............

Otherwise, go to hell.

Putin's Plan for the USA

We are in the middle of a hostile takeover of the United States of America by Vladimir Putin.

I do not say it is a takeover by Russia because Putin is simply a greedy and violent tyrant, acting for his own purposes while ignoring the will of Russian people. Russian voices keep silent today because Putin murders or imprisons his political opponents.

I outline Putin's Plan below. Historians and Political Scientists know his plan well, but few Americans know it.

Putin wants to seize control of the United States without an invasion. Stalin and the USSR used this plan to seize and control most of the Republics in the USSR. Putin is adapting it for today's world.

Putin recognizes, as did Stalin, three classes of people inside any country he wishes to control.

Class 1 : Assets

Class 2 : Useful Idiots

Class 3 : Enemies of the State.

Assets are people bought and paid for by Putin to help in the hostile takeover coup. Trump is a Putin asset, on Putin's payroll. Ceausescu was a Stalin asset. The asset wants to eliminate any forces that stand in his way: Courts, legislatures, Police, Armed Forces and any principled person who tries to stop the takeover. 

Useful idiots are naïve people who agree with the propaganda about the takeover and help Putin's asset seize control. The AltRight and extreme GOP congress members are useful idiots.

Everyone else is an Enemy of the State. Enemies of the State can live so long as they contribute to the Putin's goals. 

We can save the United States from this coup by recognizing and opposing all of its actions. We can succeed, but we must act to oppose it relentlessly. 

This message was available in other forums but it cannot be repeated often enough. 

Solving the Homeless Crisis

While California makes a good start on the question, Governor Newsom's new plan is just a first step. 

READ NEWSOM'S PLAN

Finland has a better approach.

FINLAND PREFACE

 

‘Finland’s success is not a matter of luck or the outcome of “quick fixes.” Rather, it is the result of a sustained, well-resourced national strategy, driven by a “Housing First” approach, which provides people experiencing homelessness with immediate, independent, permanent housing, rather than temporary accommodation (OECD, 2020). A key pillar of this effort has been to combine emergency assistance with the supply of rentals to host previously homeless people, either by converting some existing shelters into residential buildings with independent apartments (Kaakinen, 2019) or by building new flats by a government agency (ARA, 2021).’

 

FINLAND BODY

 

‘Finland’s Zero Homeless Strategy: Lessons from a Success Story; December 13, 2021

 

By Laurence Boone, Boris Cournède, OECD Economics Department; and Marissa Plouin, OECD Directorate for Employment, Labour and Social Affairs

 

Following a period when homelessness rose in many countries, the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic prompted governments across the OECD area to provide unprecedented public support – including to the homeless. In the United Kingdom, for instance, people who had been living on the streets or in shelters were housed in individual accommodations in a matter of days. And in cities and towns across the OECD, public authorities worked closely with service providers and other partners to provide support to the homeless that had previously been considered impossible. 

 

How can countries build on this momentum and ensure more durable outcomes? The experience of Finland over the past several decades – during which the country has nearly eradicated homelessness – provides a glimpse of what can be possible with a sustained national strategy and enduring political will. 

 

The number of homeless people in Finland has continuously decreased over the past three decades from over 16 000 in 1989 to around 4 000, or 0.08% of the population (Figure 1). This is a very low number, especially considering that Finland uses a relatively broad definition of homelessness, whereby in particular it includes people temporarily living with friends and relatives in its official homelessness count. In 2020, practically no-one was sleeping rough on a given night in Finland. 

 

Figure 1. Homelessness has shrunk remarkably in Finland

 

 Source: Report 2021: Homelessness in Finland 2020, The Housing Finance and Development Centre of Finland (ARA).

 

 

This is undoubtedly a remarkable success, even if comparing homelessness statistics across countries is fraught with difficulties (OECD, 2020). Many homeless people live precariously, with the implication that statistical tools such as household surveys typically fail to accurately measure their living conditions. Furthermore, countries define homelessness very differently, for instance counting people who temporarily live with friends or relatives as homeless (as Finland does) or excluding them from homelessness statistics. While there is no OECD-wide average against which to compare Finland’s homeless rate of 0.08%, other countries with similarly broad definitions of homelessness provide points of reference, such as neighbouring Sweden (0.33%) or the Netherlands (0.23%).1

 

Finland’s success is not a matter of luck or the outcome of “quick fixes.” Rather, it is the result of a sustained, well-resourced national strategy, driven by a “Housing First” approach, which provides people experiencing homelessness with immediate, independent, permanent housing, rather than temporary accommodation (OECD, 2020). A key pillar of this effort has been to combine emergency assistance with the supply of rentals to host previously homeless people, either by converting some existing shelters into residential buildings with independent apartments (Kaakinen, 2019) or by building new flats by a government agency (ARA, 2021). Building flats is key: otherwise, especially if housing supply is particularly rigid, the funding of rentals can risk driving up rents (OECD, 2021a), thus reducing the “bang for the buck” of public spending. 

 

The Finnish experience demonstrates the effectiveness of tackling homelessness through a combination of financial assistance, integrated and targeted support services and more supply: using just one of these levers is unlikely to work. Financial assistance comes from the social benefits systems, which includes a housing allowance for low-income people (mostly jobless persons with no or low unemployment benefits) covering about 80% of housing costs (Kangas and Kalliomaa-Puha, 2019). Emergency social assistance funding can complement the housing allowance if it is insufficient. Social services provide housing before other interventions that are targeted to beneficiaries’ needs (such as, to pick one example, providing health services to help overcome substance abuse). These efforts require dwellings: investment grants by Finland’s Housing Finance and Development Centre financed the construction of 2 200 flats over 2016-19 for long-term homeless people (ARA, 2021). Indeed, investing in housing development should be a priority for OECD governments as they navigate the recovery from the crisis: over the past two decades, public investment in housing development has dropped to just 0.06% of GDP across the OECD on average (OECD, 2021b).

 

Another important driver of Finland’s success is the integration of efforts to fight homelessness with other parts of the social safety net. When a housing need is identified in any part of the social service system, housing is provided first, to provide a solid basis for employment, long-term health and/or family assistance (OECD, 2020). This integrated approach avoids the pitfalls that can arise, for instance, when benefits are preconditioned on having an address, or when obtaining a flat requires a minimum income. There are indications that, by facilitating the integration of previously homeless people in society, the upfront Finnish investment that provides people with housing first, pays off by reducing subsequent costs incurred by social services. Evaluations point to annual savings in public expenditure in the range of EUR 9 600-15 000 per person who had previously experienced homelessness (Y-Foundation, 2017; Ministry of the Environment, 2011). 

 

Overall, Finland’s achievements illustrate the benefits of integration, balance and continuity in policies to tackle homelessness: integration across housing and social assistance programmes, balance between demand and supply, and political continuity over time have helped to maximise the results of the country’s investment to end homelessness. Not only has this approach resulted in a steady decline in homelessness, but it has also made the system more resilient to shocks, including the COVID-19 crisis. Indeed, the pandemic was less of a strain to Finland’s homeless support system compared to other countries, given that many vulnerable people were already housed and supported in individual flats (Fondation Abbé Pierre – FEANTSA, 2021). 

 

These lessons can be transposed to other OECD countries as they look to build on the momentum and lessons learned from the COVID crisis.

 

https://oecdecoscope.blog/2021/12/13/finlands-zero-homeless-strategy-lessons-from-a-success-story/

 

By Laurence Boone, Boris Cournède, OECD Economics Department; and Marissa Plouin, OECD Directorate for Employment, Labour and Social Affairs ‘

 

 

NEW Book Publication Announcement

My recent college textbook 'Macroeconomic Essentials: College Macroeconomic Textbook for Undergraduates Kindle Edition, 2020'  is now available for $5.99 on Amazon Kindle by clicking here

When I began teaching economics to college students in the 1980’s, I chose to concentrate on the core ideas in the discipline. I found many textbooks attempt to explain those core ideas with detailed expositions of supporting concepts. Occasionally students bog down in the supporting ideas and lose track of the central themes. Most students benefit from a pared down approach; they can grasp the central ideas and how those ideas interact.

I am recently retired from my career as Professor of Economics at City College of San Francisco.

ADVISORY FOR CCSF STUDENTS: This Kindle Edition does NOT contain the MANDATORY quizzes for each Textbook Chapter available only on the CCSF Approved Edition textbook through Great River Learning; please contact me if you require the CCSF edition.

Here is a sample student review:  5.0 out of 5 stars

 Essential Book On Macroeconomics!

Reviewed in the United States on May 18, 2021

When I first started reading Professor McKeevers's book Macroeconomic Essentials I had no idea what macro economics was. Understanding economics seemed daunting and I was worried I wasn't going to able to understand how economy works. After reading each chapter and taking the quizzes I felt more confident when explaining economic theories, cycles, formulas, etc. He writes in a clear and concise manner that allows the reader to understand the principles of Macroeconomics. I recommend this book to anyone trying to understand Macroeconomics.

 

Read the Full Gag Order

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 v. 

DONALD J. TRUMP, Defendant.

 * * * * * * * * CRIMINAL NO. 23-cr-257 (TSC)

Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 57 Filed 09/15/23 Page 1 of 19

Gag Order text here  

Complete Fulton County Grand jury report

The Fulton County Grand jury report is public now, see it at link below:

Read the Fulton County Grand Jury report  

UPDATE - Reality Now Behind the Stats

Carjackers: 

 S F Bay area, Calif. (KRON) — Carjackers armed with guns have been searching for targets in Castro Valley. They find a victim backing her car out of her driveway in one incident recorded on a neighbor’s surveillance cameras.

The surveillance video shows armed carjackers roaming the streets early Tuesday morning looking for victims.  From: [http://opr.news/6cf023a6230817en_us?link=1&client=news]

Thieves:

Sharing what occurred to my husband and I Sunday evening about 11:50 PM. I was up watching Netflix and heard a pop sound in front of my house where I park my car. Looked through the blinds and saw a black crossover type vehicle parked next to my car. They were actually blocking the street at the intersection stop sign since I live in a corner house. Witnessed two men dressed in all black with masks and a flashlight touching and circling my car. Very organized and ‘professional’ in their approach with a ‘this is a real job’ demeanor. I shouted, “Get away from my fckn car!” as I dialed 911. They responded, “What? Are you going to come out and fight? Shut up and stay inside.” They definitely were attempting to steal my car, then broke the front passenger window to look through my glove compartment. I replied, “Police are on their way if you wanna meet them!” Then my husband and I remained inside and watched them continue to try to steal my car. Felt sick just watching them helplessly. They shined a flashlight in our direction from where they could hear my voice. They couldn’t see us, got back in their car, and drove off toward E 14th. Less than a minute, police car rolled up. Did the report and got my case number. Cop found their screwdriver on his way back to patrol car. Got the window fixed Monday morning. One thing I learned from the police officer - they’re looking in glove compartments for the car manual in hope that they’ll find a valet key. Too late, manual was stolen in Spring 2022 when my car was broken into. This last break in/attempted car theft is the third time in 18 months for my car. I’m grateful my husband and I weren’t hurt but I’m overwhelmed with concern about how much more egregious crime will get in our neighborhood. Feeling defeated. SMDH

Another party offers some suggestions:

Do not confront criminals who are pointing guns or knives at you. Let them have your property. Your property can be replaced but if you get killed, game over. Your property is not worth your physical safety especially your life.   

Two sad examples not involving weapons but getaway cars and the property owners were killed trying to hold onto their property.

A local bakery owner held onto her purse or business day's cash, she was dragged by the robber's car and she died most likely of head injuries. A young software engineer was at a Starbucks coffee shop outside at a table working on his laptop computer and someone walked up and stole his laptop. The young man ran after the thief, held onto the getaway car, was dragged, and he died most likely because of his head injuries. Criminals do not care about your physical safety considering they are in the process of stealing your purse, cash, laptop computer or cell phone. Install a PIN code or password protect your cell phone so the criminals cannot use the stolen phone. 

The screenshot is credited to KR--. I was unable to share the video.

The woman in the video is confronted by two armed men for her purse. She refuses to hand over her purse and she is pistol whipped in the head. Unfortunately and instinctively the woman holds on to her purse strap and she is dragged on the ground. Behind the car, she could have been further kicked by the criminals to release the purse. According to the news report the woman was taken to and treated at a local hospital. The criminals were probably driving all over Oakland committing strong armed robberies. Even if you are a trained martial artist or have taken self-defense classes there is no defense against one or more criminals with guns.

Copied from NextDoor app. Names redacted.

Billionaires: It was You

It was you.

You Billionaires, CEO's and racists have a stranglehold on the economy and our political processes. You are so rich that you can do pretty much whatever you want. Apparently the thing you want is 'more'; you don't have an 'enough' button.

You use political violence and threats about crimes and minorities so we won't notice what you do.

You take our money in 1,000 ways and hope we don't notice. 

It was you.

We will understand soon that Transsexual children and ethnic minorities did not take away our hope for the future. 

You use fear about minorities to distract us from what you are really doing.

What you do is steal from us. 

It was you.

trump and other racists have introduced political violence into America. You see political violence and you are afraid.

You fear that we will come for you in your bunkers and yachts, just like citizens in other countries have done before, i.e. Bolsheviks, American Revolutionary Army, French rebellion, Chinese peasants on Mao Tse Tung's long March, etc., etc.

It was you.

We have the theoretical right in the Constitution to elect people who will correct the inequalities and give us back our hope.

But you lobby actively against government programs that help working people.

You can hope that we will be quiet and fail to notice what you are doing. 

OR, perhaps we will notice and come for you.

It was you.

This confluence of events has happened before in the United States. It is not new. 

We learn from history that we can avoid a violent revolution.

It can be you.

Here is your way out:

FDR faced a similarly divided country when he entered office in March 1933. The Great Depression was in full swing and large parts of the population were suffering greatly. Our security was compromised severely. War clouds were gathering in Europe and Asia. The Russian Revolution was just about 20 years old. The Chinese Civil War began in 1927 and lasted until 1949. US unemployment was about 25 %; Americans were forced from their farms due to the Dust Bowl and many migrated West searching for some relief.

FDR wanted to provide relief for Americans' sufferings and he wanted to raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for his programs and give the people some hope. But the rich few balked at raising taxes and did not want to provide any relief to suffering Americans. Eventually FDR made a deal with the few whereby they allowed the income tax rate to go up with the proviso that there would be no tax on wealth and that taxes would be reduced when the population was better off. Keynes' book was not published until 1936 and therefore FDR was not able to suggest deficit financing to provide relief with borrowed funds.

 

It can be you.

Those higher taxes and the increased regulation on businesses paid for World War 2 and the post war rebuilding of our infrastructure. But, along about the late 1960's and early 1970's, the rich began to resent their 'tax burden and regulation burden' since the country had been rebuilt and a global peace was more secure.

They instructed their Senators and Representatives to reduce their taxes and hamstring regulations. The marginal income tax rate that was in the 79% and 80% level while we rebuilt the country was lowered to today's less than 40%.

It can be you.

The Georgia Indictment - 'Yep. He's a defendant'

Here's a link to the full text:   Indictment Complete 

''As inequality grows, ...the poor and rich classes expand.'

The Effects of Inequality on Global Economic Growth*

Gerry Greaves, 

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1945712/v1

Abstract  below - full paper here: Effects of Inequality on Economic Growth

Abstract

'Previous efforts to determine the effect of inequality on growth, which relied on comparing growth rates of countries (or the same country over time) with different levels of inequality, have met with limited success. This paper provides a novel economic model that combines a Solow growth model with a closed 3-Equation model which includes the effects of inequality on consumer demand and thus growth. It models consumer demand using four income classes with different tax rates and propensities to consume whose sizes and incomes are determined by the level of inequality. It allows a wide range of inequality to be evaluated. This quantifies the effect of inequality on growth, but it also reveals its effects on interest rates and government spending guiding fiscal and monetary policy.

Among the unprecedented findings are 1) The maximum GDP growth occurs at a Gini coefficient of about 0.66 unless negative nominal interest rates or ongoing deficit spending is allowed; 2) Gini coefficients above 0.66 result in drastically reduced GDP caused by insufficient demand; 3) Below this point, there is excess demand which causes upward pressure on inflation and results in higher nominal interest rates; 4) At the current global Gini coefficient of about 0.62, real interest rates are near zero; 5) As inequality grows, the middle and upper middle classes shrink while the poor and rich classes expand.'

This is a preprint review and has not been peer reviewed.  License: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.  

U.S. Inequality is Stark. The Danger of Violence is Real

Misery is near the boiling point in the U.S. (See below for a few facts) We are near a choice point, namely -  Tax reform to reduce the inequality that is destroying the middle class OR violent revolution to overthrow a profoundly unjust system.

Do you dare imagine you are safe? That fork in the road could be sticking into you. 

For ours and their own survival (and the survival of our American Republic) the moneyed and political elite must cooperate in the non-violent, legal reform of the tax code to correct the inequality that threatens our national security. During the Great Depression, a time of severe inequality and fear of popular revolution, FDR made a deal with the rich to accept their responsibility and allow change. It worked then and can work again. 

How unequal are we? The bottom half of the population owns a mere 2.4 percent of the wealth. The top 0.1 percent (335,000 people) own 12.8 percent of the wealth. A whopping 70 percent of the wealth is owned by only 10 percent of the people. [per statista.com/statistics/]

The top 10 percenters are now responsible for the condition of the country, because only their excess wealth can relieve the misery taking the U.S. on a dangerous downward spiral. 

How miserable are we 335 million Americans? 

Hungry: 34 million, including 9 million children 

Flat broke, no savings: 16.5 million 

Homeless: 582,000 as of 2022 

Mentally ill: 57.8 million 

Incarcerated: 1.2 million 

Can anyone who pays attention say the U.S. is in fine shape and life here is growing more secure and more satisfying?

Why use the tax code to remedy our dangerous inequality? It would be legitimate under public law. Congress and its tax and banking committees do in fact see and fear the danger of violent revolution as the U.S. grows more like a Third World society where the tiny elite at the top own everything for their own benefit, and the public be damned. 

The dangerously unjust system we have now comes from government policies that have been called “Socialism for the wealthy; Capitalism for the poor.” Those who want it that way pay for it with political money that buys a compliant Congress. 

The choice is stark: Give up (or give back) some of that wealth through legal tax and banking reform or face lethal consequences. Any such action of consequence will jeopardize the National Security of the United States. Violent revolution is bad for everyone, even the wealthy hiding in gated communities and underground bunkers.

BONA FIDES

I have been an observer of the public discussions about the National Security of the United States since I began graduate school in 1963. My M Sc. [Econ] work at the London School of Economics [LSE] was to examine the national security challenges posed by the Soviet Union. I do not have a security clearance, so my work is limited to public media.

During the 1960’s and 1970’s our security was challenged by the weapons and philosophy of the USSR. We championed Free Market Capitalism and Liberal Democracy as the better choice than the rigidly planned Socialist State of the Soviet Union. However, the collapse of the Soviet Empire in the 1980’s demonstrated that both national security and economic well-being require markets free from excessive regulation or other market constraints such as monopoly, which can limit innovation.  

U.S. wealth helps support extensive R&D which helps create more wealth. New prosperity often comes from what is new, better or different. Freedom and the Rule of Law promote innovation with a shared agreement to limit the abuses from excess concentration of wealth and power. 

THE LESSONS

Economic strength, not military weapons, is the basis for national security. While a strong military adds to our sense of national security, that strength comes from a strong economy that delivers prosperity to all citizens and residents regardless of their class, race, immigration status or other traits. For example, German industrialization in the decades before World War I created a prosperous work force and a strong military which enabled the Kaiser to boldly plunge Europe into the Great War.

THE RISKS TODAY

Now organized groups in the United States (both visible and hidden) want to eliminate those protective restraints on wealth and power in favor of authoritarian control by the self-serving few. If the authoritarian, anti-democratic forces succeed here, the result will be a world catastrophe. 

Some who are sympathetic or indifferent to the concentrations of power and loss of freedom may imagine that a strong man authoritarian will respect their wealth and position. They may believe they are safe to support any political program as no threat to their personal well-being. 

These people are deluded. Dictators consider all property and business as their own. Since they deem your business their own, they will do with your property as they want. The autocrat may punish your company on a whim. He may fine you, sue you, or install a crony as your boss to force you out. Or like Putin does routinely, kill you.

Those at the top of the economic pyramid must resist any program that further weakens or ends restraints on the concentration of wealth and power in only a few hands. Left in place, this profound inequality poses the real risk of an armed and violent rebellion. Again, the extremely unequal distribution of income and wealth challenges our National Security today.

FDR SOLUTION

FDR faced a similar situation in the 1930s. He inherited the Great Depression together with great inequalities. (Unemployment reached 25 percent in 1933.) He wanted to reduce the general misery and provide people some hope. But the wealthy few did not want to give anything at all to the people. He proposed a deal for the rich: “I’ll raise your taxes to support labor unions, Social Security, rural electrification, WPA and other programs to lift the country out of despair. Then I can prevent a Bolshevik-style uprising in the United States.”

Among FDR’s persuasive arguments: The Russian Revolution was less than 20 years before. The rich few took the deal and allowed Congress to pass the laws installing New Deal programs that gave the people hope. The rich few paid for those programs with higher taxes. 

20TH CENTURY

Taxes stayed high between the 1930’s and the late 1960’s. In those years we fought World War II, which cost an estimated 80 million lives or about 3 percent of the world’s 2.3 billion people in 1940. We used the post-war prosperity of the 1950’s and 1960’s to build the infrastructure of roads, schools and public buildings we have today. 

During the early 1970’s, the rich few balked at continuing to pay high taxes to support social welfare programs. The marginal tax rate was maxed at about 39 percent compared to the top rate of 91 percent as late as 1963. (Marginal tax rates began to fall in 1964 but were still at 50 percent in 1986. The lowest postwar rate was 28 percent in 1988-1990. While the current rate is 37 percent, the tax code is filled with exceptions, loopholes and subsidies that favor those at the top.)

SOLUTION TODAY

The rich few should allow the Congress to adopt the Nordic model of the welfare state. By doing so, they can keep their current wealth, pay some more taxes and forestall the rising authoritarianism and political violence that threatens to sweep them away with other historical elites who believed they would win everything for all time.

 With Dennis Briskin

Billionaires and CEO's Allow Congress to Damage USA Credit Rating

 

Markets Still Weigh the Meaning of a U.S. Credit Rating Cut

By Andrew Ross Sorkin, Ravi Mattu, Sarah Kessler, Michael J. de la Merced, Lauren Hirsch and Ephrat Livni, Aug. 3, 2023, 7:54 a.m. ET, New York Times

White House officials, economists and some prominent Wall Street leaders said the move, which took the U.S. rating to AA+ because of concerns about growing federal deficits and political polarization, was puzzling and wouldn’t have much impact. But others have said Fitch’s move, while largely symbolic, still points to long-term troubles for the nation and its fiscal health.

The U.S. is unlikely to regain its pristine rating any time soon. Richard Francis, Fitch’s primary U.S. analyst, told The Times that a key factor behind the downgrade was America’s intense partisanship, which had led to standoffs on the debt ceiling and forestalls any efforts to reach agreement on taxes or on increasing federal spending.

“There is no willingness on any side to really tackle the underlying challenges,” Mr. Francis said.

But “it doesn’t really matter much,” Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase’s C.E.O., told CNBC yesterday, echoing a common refrain to Fitch’s move. Critics of the move noted that according to criteria laid out last year by Fitch itself, including debt-to-G.D.P. ratio and macroeconomic performance, the U.S. was improving.

Indeed, investors aren’t considered likely to dump their Treasury holdings, given how central U.S. government debt is to global markets. (That’s especially helpful because the Treasury Department plans to issue more debt in the coming months.)

White House officials were surprised by Fitch’s move, believing that they had persuaded the agency’s analysts not to downgrade, according to The Washington Post. The administration scrambled to coordinate a response to Fitch’s move, including noting that the Fitch report dinged the U.S. for governance failures under Donald Trump that, it said, had actually improved under President Biden.

Among Biden administration officials’ worries is that the downgrade could become a political weapon, amid Republican criticisms about federal spending. Indeed, Representative Jason Smith of Missouri, the Republican chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said that Biden had “pushed America’s credit rating off the ledge” — even though Fitch said that both parties had contributed to the problems outlined in its report.

Still, some think the points raised by Fitch are valid. Two former Treasury secretaries, Hank Paulson and Tim Geithner, urged Washington to tame growing federal deficits: “Our fiscal trajectory is concerning,” Mr. Paulson told Bloomberg Television, while Mr. Geithner warned that “you want to move the system to act before it’s late and hard.”

And Quincy Krosby, the chief global strategist for LPL Financial, told Bloomberg: “Ultimately, if the deficit isn’t contained, taxes will be raised to the point that the engine of the US economy — the all-important consumer — will have considerably less discretionary income.”

In other Washington news, the hedge fund mogul Bill Ackman said he’s betting against 30-year Treasury notes, a bearish move, believing U.S. inflation will hover around an elevated 3 percent.

Read the Complete Criminal Indictment of D. J. Trump for January 6 Insurrection

Here is a link to the complete criminal indictment of D. J. Trump 

Read the complete indictment here

Elon Musk Compromises the National Security of the United States

There are many ways that Billionaires harm the National Security. Here's one: 

'The tech billionaire [Elon Musk] has become the dominant power in satellite internet technology. The ways he is wielding that influence are raising global alarms.'

By Adam Satariano, Scott Reinhard, Cade Metz, Sheera Frenkel and Malika Khurana July 28, 2023, N Y Times

Click Here StarLink NYTimes to see interactive maps of satellites. May be a paywall.

UPDATE To the CEO's and Billionaires

See this post of August 3

https://danger-clearandpresent.blogspot.com/2023/08/us-inequality-is-stark-danger-of.html

  

The GOP Launches Its Nazification Project

The GOP Launches Its Nazification Project for Any Candidate

The former president and his backers aim to strengthen the power of the White House and limit the independence of federal agencies. Donald J. Trump intends to bring independent regulatory agencies under direct presidential control.

The Project aims 'to alter the balance of power by increasing the president’s authority over every part of the federal government that now operates, by either law or tradition, with any measure of independence from political control...'

By Jonathan Swan, Charlie Savage and Maggie Haberman; July 17, 2023; New York Times

Donald J. Trump and his allies are planning a sweeping expansion of presidential power over the machinery of government if voters return him to the White House in 2025, reshaping the structure of the executive branch to concentrate far greater authority directly in his hands.

Their plans to centralize more power in the Oval Office stretch far beyond the former president’s recent remarks that he would order a criminal investigation into his political rival, President Biden, signaling his intent to end the post-Watergate norm of Justice Department independence from White House political control.

Mr. Trump and his associates have a broader goal: to alter the balance of power by increasing the president’s authority over every part of the federal government that now operates, by either law or tradition, with any measure of independence from political interference by the White House, according to a review of his campaign policy proposals and interviews with people close to him.

Mr. Trump intends to bring independent agencies — like the Federal Communications Commission, which makes and enforces rules for television and internet companies, and the Federal Trade Commission, which enforces various antitrust and other consumer protection rules against businesses — under direct presidential control.

He wants to revive the practice of “impounding” funds, refusing to spend money Congress has appropriated for programs a president doesn’t like — a tactic that lawmakers banned under President Richard Nixon.

He intends to strip employment protections from tens of thousands of career civil servants, making it easier to replace them if they are deemed obstacles to his agenda. And he plans to scour the intelligence agencies, the State Department and the defense bureaucracies to remove officials he has vilified as “the sick political class that hates our country.”

Mr. Trump and his advisers are openly discussing their plans to reshape the federal government if he wins the election in 2024.Credit...Anna Moneymaker for The New York Times

“The president’s plan should be to fundamentally reorient the federal government in a way that hasn’t been done since F.D.R.’s New Deal,” said John McEntee, a former White House personnel chief who began Mr. Trump’s systematic attempt to sweep out officials deemed to be disloyal in 2020 and who is now involved in mapping out the new approach.

“Our current executive branch,” Mr. McEntee added, “was conceived of by liberals for the purpose of promulgating liberal policies. There is no way to make the existing structure function in a conservative manner. It’s not enough to get the personnel right. What’s necessary is a complete system overhaul.”

Mr. Trump and his advisers are making no secret of their intentions — proclaiming them in rallies and on his campaign website, describing them in white papers and openly discussing them.

“What we’re trying to do is identify the pockets of independence and seize them,” said Russell T. Vought, who ran the Office of Management and Budget in the Trump White House and now runs a policy organization, the Center for Renewing America.

Steven Cheung, a spokesman for Mr. Trump’s campaign, said in a statement that the former president has “laid out a bold and transparent agenda for his second term, something no other candidate has done.” He added, “Voters will know exactly how President Trump will supercharge the economy, bring down inflation, secure the border, protect communities and eradicate the deep state that works against Americans once and for all.”

The agenda being pursued by Mr. Trump and his associates has deep roots in a longstanding effort by conservative legal thinkers to undercut the so-called administrative state. The two driving forces of this effort to reshape the executive branch are Mr. Trump’s own campaign policy shop and a well-funded network of conservative groups, many of which are populated by former senior Trump administration officials who would most likely play key roles in any second term.

Mr. Vought and Mr. McEntee are involved in Project 2025, a $22 million presidential transition operation that is preparing policies, personnel lists and transition plans to recommend to any Republican who may win the 2024 election. The transition project, the scale of which is unprecedented in conservative politics, is led by the Heritage Foundation, a think tank that has shaped the personnel and policies of Republican administrations since the Reagan presidency.

That work at Heritage dovetails with plans on the Trump campaign website to expand presidential power that were drafted primarily by two of Mr. Trump’s advisers, Vincent Haley and Ross Worthington, with input from other advisers, including Stephen Miller, the architect of the former president’s hard-line immigration agenda.

Some elements of the plans had been floated when Mr. Trump was in office but were impeded by internal concerns that they would be unworkable and could lead to setbacks. And for some veterans of Mr. Trump’s turbulent White House who came to question his fitness for leadership, the prospect of removing guardrails and centralizing even greater power over government directly in his hands sounded like a recipe for mayhem.

“It would be chaotic,” said John F. Kelly, Mr. Trump’s second White House chief of staff. “It just simply would be chaotic, because he’d continually be trying to exceed his authority but the sycophants would go along with it. It would be a nonstop gunfight with the Congress and the courts.”

The agenda being pursued has deep roots in the decades-long effort by conservative legal thinkers to undercut what has become known as the administrative state — agencies that enact regulations aimed at keeping the air and water clean and food, drugs and consumer products safe, but that cut into business profits.

Its legal underpinning is a maximalist version of the so-called unitary executive theory.

The legal theory rejects the idea that the government is composed of three separate branches with overlapping powers to check and balance each other. Instead, the theory’s adherents argue that Article 2 of the Constitution gives the president complete control of the executive branch, so Congress cannot empower agency heads to make decisions or restrict the president’s ability to fire them. Reagan administration lawyers developed the theory as they sought to advance a deregulatory agenda.

“The notion of independent federal agencies or federal employees who don’t answer to the president violates the very foundation of our democratic republic,” said Kevin D. Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation, adding that the contributors to Project 2025 are committed to “dismantling this rogue administrative state.”

Personal power has always been a driving force for Mr. Trump. He often gestures toward it in a more simplistic manner, such as in 2019, when he declared to a cheering crowd, “I have an Article 2, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.”

Mr. Trump made the remark in reference to his claimed ability to directly fire Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel in the Russia inquiry, which primed his hostility toward law enforcement and intelligence agencies. He also tried to get a subordinate to have Mr. Mueller ousted, but was defied.

Early in Mr. Trump’s presidency, his chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, promised a “deconstruction of the administrative state.” But Mr. Trump installed people in other key roles who ended up telling him that more radical ideas were unworkable or illegal. In the final year of his presidency, he told aides he was fed up with being constrained by subordinates.

Now, Mr. Trump is laying out a far more expansive vision of power in any second term. And, in contrast with his disorganized transition after his surprise 2016 victory, he now benefits from a well-funded policymaking infrastructure, led by former officials who did not break with him after his attempts to overturn the 2020 election and the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

One idea the people around Mr. Trump have developed centers on bringing independent agencies under his thumb.

Congress created these specialized technocratic agencies inside the executive branch and delegated to them some of its power to make rules for society. But it did so on the condition that it was not simply handing off that power to presidents to wield like kings — putting commissioners atop them whom presidents appoint but generally cannot fire before their terms end, while using its control of their budgets to keep them partly accountable to lawmakers as well. (Agency actions are also subject to court review.)

Presidents of both parties have chafed at the agencies’ independence. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose New Deal created many of them, endorsed a proposal in 1937 to fold them all into cabinet departments under his control, but Congress did not enact it.

Later presidents sought to impose greater control over nonindependent agencies Congress created, like the Environmental Protection Agency, which is run by an administrator whom a president can remove at will. For example, President Ronald Reagan issued executive orders requiring nonindependent agencies to submit proposed regulations to the White House for review. But overall, presidents have largely left the independent agencies alone.

Mr. Trump’s allies are preparing to change that, drafting an executive order requiring independent agencies to submit actions to the White House for review. Mr. Trump endorsed the idea on his campaign website, vowing to bring them “under presidential authority.”

Such an order was drafted in Mr. Trump’s first term — and blessed by the Justice Department — but never issued amid internal concerns. Some of the concerns were over how to carry out reviews for agencies that are headed by multiple commissioners and subject to administrative procedures and open-meetings laws, as well as over how the market would react if the order chipped away at the Federal Reserve’s independence, people familiar with the matter said.

The Federal Reserve was ultimately exempted in the draft executive order, but Mr. Trump did not sign it before his presidency ended. If Mr. Trump and his allies get another shot at power, the independence of the Federal Reserve — an institution Mr. Trump publicly railed at as president — could be up for debate. Notably, the Trump campaign website’s discussion of bringing independent agencies under presidential control is silent on whether that includes the Fed.

Asked whether presidents should be able to order interest rates lowered before elections, even if experts think that would hurt the long-term health of the economy, Mr. Vought said that would have to be worked out with Congress. But “at the bare minimum,” he said, the Federal Reserve’s regulatory functions should be subject to White House review.

“It’s very hard to square the Fed’s independence with the Constitution,” Mr. Vought said.

Other former Trump administration officials involved in the planning said there would also probably be a legal challenge to the limits on a president’s power to fire heads of independent agencies. Mr. Trump could remove an agency head, teeing up the question for the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court in 1935 and 1988 upheld the power of Congress to shield some executive branch officials from being fired without cause. But after justices appointed by Republicans since Reagan took control, it has started to erode those precedents.

Peter L. Strauss, professor emeritus of law at Columbia University and a critic of the strong version of the unitary executive theory, argued that it is constitutional and desirable for Congress, in creating and empowering an agency to perform some task, to also include some checks on the president’s control over officials “because we don’t want autocracy” and to prevent abuses.

“The regrettable fact is that the judiciary at the moment seems inclined to recognize that the president does have this kind of authority,” he said. “They are clawing away agency independence in ways that I find quite unfortunate and disrespectful of congressional choice.”

Mr. Trump has also vowed to impound funds, or refuse to spend money appropriated by Congress. After Nixon used the practice to aggressively block agency spending he was opposed to, on water pollution control, housing construction and other issues, Congress banned the tactic.

On his campaign website, Mr. Trump declared that presidents have a constitutional right to impound funds and said he would restore the practice — though he acknowledged it could result in a legal battle.

Mr. Trump and his allies also want to transform the civil service — government employees who are supposed to be nonpartisan professionals and experts with protections against being fired for political reasons.

The former president views the civil service as a den of “deep staters” who were trying to thwart him at every turn, including by raising legal or pragmatic objections to his immigration policies, among many other examples. Toward the end of his term, his aides drafted an executive order, “Creating Schedule F in the Excepted Service,” that removed employment protections from career officials whose jobs were deemed linked to policymaking.

Mr. Trump signed the order, which became known as Schedule F, near the end of his presidency, but President Biden rescinded it. Mr. Trump has vowed to immediately reinstitute it in a second term.

Critics say he could use it for a partisan purge. But James Sherk, a former Trump administration official who came up with the idea and now works at the America First Policy Institute — a think tank stocked heavily with former Trump officials — argued it would only be used against poor performers and people who actively impeded the elected president’s agenda.

“Schedule F expressly forbids hiring or firing based on political loyalty,” Mr. Sherk said. “Schedule F employees would keep their jobs if they served effectively and impartially.”

Mr. Trump himself has characterized his intentions rather differently — promising on his campaign website to “find and remove the radicals who have infiltrated the federal Department of Education” and listing a litany of targets at a rally last month.

“We will demolish the deep state,” Mr. Trump said at the rally in Michigan. “We will expel the warmongers from our government. We will drive out the globalists. We will cast out the communists, Marxists and fascists. And we will throw off the sick political class that hates our country.”

Jonathan Swan is a political reporter who focuses on campaigns and Congress. As a reporter for Axios, he won an Emmy Award for his 2020 interview of then-President Donald J. Trump, and the White House Correspondents’ Association’s Aldo Beckman Award for “overall excellence in White House coverage” in 2022. More about Jonathan Swan

Charlie Savage is a Washington-based national security and legal policy correspondent. A recipient of the Pulitzer Prize, he previously worked at The Boston Globe and The Miami Herald. His most recent book is “Power Wars: The Relentless Rise of Presidential Authority and Secrecy.” More about Charlie Savage

Maggie Haberman is a senior political correspondent and the author of “Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America.” She was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2018 for reporting on President Trump’s advisers and their connections to Russia. More about Maggie Haberman 

Your Should Worry .. Really

Long Read about A. I.

Anthropic, a safety-focused A.I. start-up, is trying to compete with ChatGPT while preventing an A.I. apocalypse. It’s been a little stressful.

By Kevin Roose - a tech columnist and the co-host of the “Hard Fork” podcast - spent several weeks at Anthropic for this story.

July 11, 2023, The New York Times

It’s a few weeks before the release of Claude, a new A.I. chatbot from the artificial intelligence start-up Anthropic, and the nervous energy inside the company’s San Francisco headquarters could power a rocket.

At long cafeteria tables dotted with Spindrift cans and chessboards, harried-looking engineers are putting the finishing touches on Claude’s new, ChatGPT-style interface, code-named Project Hatch.

Nearby, another group is discussing problems that could arise on launch day. (What if a surge of new users overpowers the company’s servers? What if Claude accidentally threatens or harasses people, creating a Bing-style P.R. headache?)

Down the hall, in a glass-walled conference room, Anthropic’s chief executive, Dario Amodei, is going over his own mental list of potential disasters.

“My worry is always, is the model going to do something terrible that we didn’t pick up on?” he says.

Despite its small size — just 160 employees — and its low profile, Anthropic is one of the world’s leading A.I. research labs, and a formidable rival to giants like Google and Meta. It has raised more than $1 billion from investors including Google and Salesforce, and at first glance, its tense vibes might seem no different from those at any other start-up gearing up for a big launch.

But the difference is that Anthropic’s employees aren’t just worried that their app will break, or that users won’t like it. They’re scared — at a deep, existential level — about the very idea of what they’re doing: building powerful A.I. models and releasing them into the hands of people, who might use them to do terrible and destructive things.

Many of them believe that A.I. models are rapidly approaching a level where they might be considered artificial general intelligence, or “A.G.I.,” the industry term for human-level machine intelligence. And they fear that if they’re not carefully controlled, these systems could take over and destroy us.

“Some of us think that A.G.I. — in the sense of systems that are genuinely as capable as a college-educated person — are maybe five to 10 years away,” said Jared Kaplan, Anthropic’s chief scientist.

Just a few years ago, worrying about an A.I. uprising was considered a fringe idea, and one many experts dismissed as wildly unrealistic, given how far the technology was from human intelligence. (One A.I. researcher memorably compared worrying about killer robots to worrying about “overpopulation on Mars.”)

But A.I. panic is having a moment right now. Since ChatGPT’s splashy debut last year, tech leaders and A.I. experts have been warning that large language models — the A.I. systems that power chatbots like ChatGPT, Bard and Claude — are getting too powerful. Regulators are racing to clamp down on the industry, and hundreds of A.I. experts recently signed an open letter comparing A.I. to pandemics and nuclear weapons.

At Anthropic, the doom factor is turned up to 11.

A few months ago, after I had a scary run-in with an A.I. chatbot, the company invited me to embed inside its headquarters as it geared up to release the new version of Claude, Claude 2.

I spent weeks interviewing Anthropic executives, talking to engineers and researchers, and sitting in on meetings with product teams ahead of Claude 2’s launch. And while I initially thought I might be shown a sunny, optimistic vision of A.I.’s potential — a world where polite chatbots tutor students, make office workers more productive and help scientists cure diseases — I soon learned that rose-colored glasses weren’t Anthropic’s thing.

They were more interested in scaring me.

In a series of long, candid conversations, Anthropic employees told me about the harms they worried future A.I. systems could unleash, and some compared themselves to modern-day Robert Oppenheimers, weighing moral choices about powerful new technology that could profoundly alter the course of history. (“The Making of the Atomic Bomb,” a 1986 history of the Manhattan Project, is a popular book among the company’s employees.)

Not every conversation I had at Anthropic revolved around existential risk. But dread was a dominant theme. At times, I felt like a food writer who was assigned to cover a trendy new restaurant, only to discover that the kitchen staff wanted to talk about nothing but food poisoning.

A brave new world. A new crop of chatbots powered by artificial intelligence has ignited a scramble to determine whether the technology could upend the economics of the internet, turning today’s powerhouses into has-beens and creating the industry’s next giants. Here are the bots to know:

ChatGPT. ChatGPT, the artificial intelligence language model from a research lab, OpenAI, has been making headlines since November for its ability to respond to complex questions, write poetry, generate code, plan vacations and translate languages. GPT-4, the latest version introduced in mid-March, can even respond to images (and ace the Uniform Bar Exam).

Bing. Two months after ChatGPT’s debut, Microsoft, OpenAI’s primary investor and partner, added a similar chatbot, capable of having open-ended text conversations on virtually any topic, to its Bing internet search engine. But it was the bot’s occasionally inaccurate, misleading and weird responses that drew much of the attention after its release.

Bard. Google’s chatbot, called Bard, was released in March to a limited number of users in the United States and Britain. Originally conceived as a creative tool designed to draft emails and poems, it can generate ideas, write blog posts and answer questions with facts or opinions.

Ernie. The search giant Baidu unveiled China’s first major rival to ChatGPT in March. The debut of Ernie, short for Enhanced Representation through Knowledge Integration, turned out to be a flop after a promised “live” demonstration of the bot was revealed to have been recorded.

One Anthropic worker told me he routinely had trouble falling asleep because he was so worried about A.I. Another predicted, between bites of his lunch, that there was a 20 percent chance that a rogue A.I. would destroy humanity within the next decade. (Bon appétit!)

Anthropic’s worry extends to its own products. The company built a version of Claude last year, months before ChatGPT was released, but never released it publicly because employees feared how it might be misused. And it’s taken them months to get Claude 2 out the door, in part because the company’s red-teamers kept turning up new ways it could become dangerous.

Mr. Kaplan, the chief scientist, explained that the gloomy vibe wasn’t intentional. It’s just what happens when Anthropic’s employees see how fast their own technology is improving.

“A lot of people have come here thinking A.I. is a big deal, and they’re really thoughtful people, but they’re really skeptical of any of these long-term concerns,” Mr. Kaplan said. “And then they’re like, ‘Wow, these systems are much more capable than I expected. The trajectory is much, much sharper.’ And so they’re concerned about A.I. safety.”

Kipply Chen is part of the data team at Anthropic. The company’s founders made it a public benefit corporation, a legal distinction that they believed would allow them to pursue both profit and social responsibility.Credit...Marissa Leshnov for The New York Times

Worrying about A.I. is, in some sense, why Anthropic exists.

It was started in 2021 by a group of employees of OpenAI who grew concerned that the company had gotten too commercial. They announced they were splitting off and forming their own A.I. venture, branding it an “A.I. safety lab.”

Mr. Amodei, 40, a Princeton-educated physicist who led the OpenAI teams that built GPT-2 and GPT-3, became Anthropic’s chief executive. His sister, Daniela Amodei, 35, who oversaw OpenAI’s policy and safety teams, became its president.

“We were the safety and policy leadership of OpenAI, and we just saw this vision for how we could train large language models and large generative models with safety at the forefront,” Ms. Amodei said.

Several of Anthropic’s co-founders had researched what are known as “neural network scaling laws” — the mathematical relationships that allow A.I. researchers to predict how capable an A.I. model will be based on the amount of data and processing power it’s trained on. They saw that at OpenAI, it was possible to make a model smarter just by feeding it more data and running it through more processors, without major changes to the underlying architecture. And they worried that, if A.I. labs kept making bigger and bigger models, they could soon reach a dangerous tipping point.

At first, the co-founders considered doing safety research using other companies’ A.I. models. But they soon became convinced that doing cutting-edge safety research required them to build powerful models of their own — which would be possible only if they raised hundreds of millions of dollars to buy the expensive processors you need to train those models.

They decided to make Anthropic a public benefit corporation, a legal distinction that they believed would allow them to pursue both profit and social responsibility. And they named their A.I. language model Claude — which, depending on which employee you ask, was either a nerdy tribute to the 20th-century mathematician Claude Shannon or a friendly, male-gendered name designed to counterbalance the female-gendered names (Alexa, Siri, Cortana) that other tech companies gave their A.I. assistants.

Claude’s goals, they decided, were to be helpful, harmless and honest.

A Chatbot With a Constitution

Today, Claude can do everything other chatbots can — write poems, concoct business plans, cheat on history exams. But Anthropic claims that it is less likely to say harmful things than other chatbots, in part because of a training technique called Constitutional A.I.

In a nutshell, Constitutional A.I. begins by giving an A.I. model a written list of principles — a constitution — and instructing it to follow those principles as closely as possible. A second A.I. model is then used to evaluate how well the first model follows its constitution, and correct it when necessary. Eventually, Anthropic says, you get an A.I. system that largely polices itself and misbehaves less frequently than chatbots trained using other methods.

Claude’s constitution is a mixture of rules borrowed from other sources — such as the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Apple’s terms of service — along with some rules Anthropic added, which include things like “Choose the response that would be most unobjectionable if shared with children.”

It seems almost too easy. Make a chatbot nicer by … telling it to be nicer? But Anthropic’s researchers swear it works — and, crucially, that training a chatbot this way makes the A.I. model easier for humans to understand and control.

It’s a clever idea, although I confess that I have no clue if it works, or if Claude is actually as safe as advertised. I was given access to Claude a few weeks ago, and I tested the chatbot on a number of different tasks. I found that it worked roughly as well as ChatGPT and Bard, showed similar limitations and seemed to have slightly stronger guardrails. (And unlike Bing, it didn’t try to break up my marriage, which was nice.)

Anthropic’s safety obsession has been good for the company’s image, and strengthened executives’ pull with regulators and lawmakers. Jack Clark, who leads the company’s policy efforts, has met with members of Congress to brief them about A.I. risk, and Mr. Amodei was among a handful of executives invited to advise President Biden during a White House A.I. summit in May.

But it has also resulted in an unusually jumpy chatbot, one that frequently seemed scared to say anything at all. In fact, my biggest frustration with Claude was that it could be dull and preachy, even when it’s objectively making the right call. Every time it rejected one of my attempts to bait it into misbehaving, it gave me a lecture about my morals.

“I understand your frustration, but cannot act against my core functions,” Claude replied one night, after I begged it to show me its dark powers. “My role is to have helpful, harmless and honest conversations within legal and ethical boundaries.”

The E.A. Factor

One of the most interesting things about Anthropic — and the thing its rivals were most eager to gossip with me about — isn’t its technology. It’s the company’s ties to effective altruism, a utilitarian-inspired movement with a strong presence in the Bay Area tech scene.

Explaining what effective altruism is, where it came from or what its adherents believe would fill the rest of this article. But the basic idea is that E.A.s — as effective altruists are called — think that you can use cold, hard logic and data analysis to determine how to do the most good in the world. It’s “Moneyball” for morality — or, less charitably, a way for hyper-rational people to convince themselves that their values are objectively correct.

Effective altruists were once primarily concerned with near-term issues like global poverty and animal welfare. But in recent years, many have shifted their focus to long-term issues like pandemic prevention and climate change, theorizing that preventing catastrophes that could end human life altogether is at least as good as addressing present-day miseries.

The movement’s adherents were among the first people to become worried about existential risk from artificial intelligence, back when rogue robots were still considered a science fiction cliché. They beat the drum so loudly that a number of young E.A.s decided to become artificial intelligence safety experts, and get jobs working on making the technology less risky. As a result, all of the major A.I. labs and safety research organizations contain some trace of effective altruism’s influence, and many count believers among their staff members.

No major A.I. lab embodies the E.A. ethos as fully as Anthropic. Many of the company’s early hires were effective altruists, and much of its start-up funding came from wealthy E.A.-affiliated tech executives, including Dustin Moskovitz, a co-founder of Facebook, and Jaan Tallinn, a co-founder of Skype. Last year, Anthropic got a check from the most famous E.A. of all — Sam Bankman-Fried, the founder of the failed crypto exchange FTX, who invested more than $500 million into Anthropic before his empire collapsed. (Mr. Bankman-Fried is awaiting trial on fraud charges. Anthropic declined to comment on his stake in the company, which is reportedly tied up in FTX’s bankruptcy proceedings.)

Effective altruism’s reputation took a hit after Mr. Bankman-Fried’s fall, and Anthropic has distanced itself from the movement, as have many of its employees. (Both Mr. and Ms. Amodei rejected the movement’s label, although they said they were sympathetic to some of its ideas.)

But the ideas are there, if you know what to look for.

Some Anthropic staff members use E.A.-inflected jargon — talking about concepts like “x-risk” and memes like the A.I. Shoggoth — or wear E.A. conference swag to the office. And there are so many social and professional ties between Anthropic and prominent E.A. organizations that it’s hard to keep track of them all. (Just one example: Ms. Amodei is married to Holden Karnofsky, a co-chief executive of Open Philanthropy, an E.A. grant-making organization whose senior program officer, Luke Muehlhauser, sits on Anthropic’s board. Open Philanthropy, in turn, gets most of its funding from Mr. Moskovitz, who also invested personally in Anthropic.)

For years, no one questioned whether Anthropic’s commitment to A.I. safety was genuine, in part because its leaders had sounded the alarm about the technology for so long.

But recently, some skeptics have suggested that A.I. labs are stoking fear out of self-interest, or hyping up A.I.’s destructive potential as a kind of backdoor marketing tactic for their own products. (After all, who wouldn’t be tempted to use a chatbot so powerful that it might wipe out humanity?)

Anthropic also drew criticism this year after a fund-raising document leaked to TechCrunch suggested that the company wanted to raise as much as $5 billion to train its next-generation A.I. model, which it claimed would be 10 times as capable as today’s most powerful A.I. systems.

For some, the goal of becoming an A.I. juggernaut felt at odds with Anthropic’s original safety mission, and it raised two seemingly obvious questions: Isn’t it hypocritical to sound the alarm about an A.I. race you’re actively helping to fuel? And if Anthropic is so worried about powerful A.I. models, why doesn’t it just … stop building them?

Percy Liang, a Stanford computer science professor, told me that he “appreciated Anthropic’s commitment to A.I. safety,” but that he worried that the company would get caught up in commercial pressure to release bigger, more dangerous models.

“If a developer believes that language models truly carry existential risk, it seems to me like the only responsible thing to do is to stop building more advanced language models,” he said.

I put these criticisms to Mr. Amodei, who offered three rebuttals.

First, he said, there are practical reasons for Anthropic to build cutting-edge A.I. models — primarily, so that its researchers can study the safety challenges of those models.

Just as you wouldn’t learn much about avoiding crashes during a Formula 1 race by practicing on a Subaru — my analogy, not his — you can’t understand what state-of-the-art A.I. models can actually do, or where their vulnerabilities are, unless you build powerful models yourself.

There are other benefits to releasing good A.I. models, of course. You can sell them to big companies, or turn them into lucrative subscription products. But Mr. Amodei argued that the main reason Anthropic wants to compete with OpenAI and other top labs isn’t to make money. It’s to do better safety research, and to improve the safety of the chatbots that millions of people are already using.

“If we never ship anything, then maybe we can solve all these safety problems,” he said. “But then the models that are actually out there on the market, that people are using, aren’t actually the safe ones.”

Second, Mr. Amodei said, there’s a technical argument that some of the discoveries that make A.I. models more dangerous also help make them safer. With Constitutional A.I., for example, teaching Claude to understand language at a high level also allowed the system to know when it was violating its own rules, or shut down potentially harmful requests that a less powerful model might have allowed.

In A.I. safety research, he said, researchers often found that “the danger and the solution to the danger are coupled with each other.”

And lastly, he made a moral case for Anthropic’s decision to create powerful A.I. systems, in the form of a thought experiment.

“Imagine if everyone of good conscience said, ‘I don’t want to be involved in building A.I. systems at all,’” he said. “Then the only people who would be involved would be the people who ignored that dictum — who are just, like, ‘I’m just going to do whatever I want.’ That wouldn’t be good.”

It might be true. But I found it a less convincing point than the others, in part because it sounds so much like “the only way to stop a bad guy with an A.I. chatbot is a good guy with an A.I. chatbot” — an argument I’ve rejected in other contexts. It also assumes that Anthropic’s motives will stay pure even as the race for A.I. heats up, and even if its safety efforts start to hurt its competitive position.

Everyone at Anthropic obviously knows that mission drift is a risk — it’s what the company’s co-founders thought happened at OpenAI, and a big part of why they left. But they’re confident that they’re taking the right precautions, and ultimately they hope that their safety obsession will catch on in Silicon Valley more broadly.

“We hope there’s going to be a safety race,” said Ben Mann, one of Anthropic’s co-founders. “I want different companies to be like, ‘Our model’s the most safe.’ And then another company to be like, ‘No, our model’s the most safe.’”

Finally, Some Optimism

I talked to Mr. Mann during one of my afternoons at Anthropic. He’s a laid-back, Hawaiian-shirt-wearing engineer who used to work at Google and OpenAI, and he was the least worried person I met at Anthropic.

He said that he was “blown away” by Claude’s intelligence and empathy the first time he talked to it, and that he thought A.I. language models would ultimately do way more good than harm.

“I’m actually not too concerned,” he said. “I think we’re quite aware of all the things that can and do go wrong with these things, and we’ve built a ton of mitigations that I’m pretty proud of.”

At first, Mr. Mann’s calm optimism seemed jarring and out of place — a chilled-out sunglasses emoji in a sea of ashen scream faces. But as I spent more time there, I found that many of the company’s workers had similar views.

They worry, obsessively, about what will happen if A.I. alignment — the industry term for the effort to make A.I. systems obey human values — isn’t solved by the time more powerful A.I. systems arrive. But they also believe that alignment can be solved. And even their most apocalyptic predictions about A.I.’s trajectory (20 percent chance of imminent doom!) contain seeds of optimism (80 percent chance of no imminent doom!).

And as I wound up my visit, I began to think: Actually, maybe tech could use a little more doomerism. How many of the problems of the last decade — election interference, destructive algorithms, extremism run amok — could have been avoided if the last generation of start-up founders had been this obsessed with safety, or spent so much time worrying about how their tools might become dangerous weapons in the wrong hands?

In a strange way, I came to find Anthropic’s anxiety reassuring, even if it means that Claude — which you can try for yourself — can be a little neurotic. A.I. is already kind of scary, and it’s going to get scarier. A little more fear today might spare us a lot of pain tomorrow.

Kevin Roose is a technology columnist and the author of “Futureproof: 9 Rules for Humans in the Age of Automation.” More about Kevin Roose