Skip to navigationSkip to content
Lorenzo Gritti

Good afternoon.

Navigating capitalism

Travel Olympically

Startup life & strife

Changing the game for health

Disrupting dementia

Monopolizing deportation

The sole airline willing to deport high-risk immigrants is price-gouging ICE. There is only one carrier willing to take on US deportation flights and they're charging the US government nearly double the normal price, making flights as expensive as $33,500 per hour in November.

Sole airline willing to deport high-risk immigrants is price-gouging ICE

A basic lesson in supply and demand, as seen through the lens of ICE Air ops in an unredacted ICE document we obtained. ICE can only obtain the Boeing 767s required for its so-called SHRC (special high-risk charter) flights from one company in the entire country, because it's the only firm willing to

A basic lesson in supply and demand, as seen through the lens of ICE Air ops in an unredacted ICE document we obtained. ICE can only obtain the Boeing 767s required for its so-called SHRC (special high-risk charter) flights from one company in the entire country, because it's the only firm willing to take the contract for fear of negative press. But last month, those 767s were tied up with other, richer customers (i.e. the Dept. of Defense). So ICE was forced to take whatever the carrier offered—a 777 that was a couple of hundred seats bigger than what ICE needed, and double the price: $33,000/flight hr vs $17,000/flight hr. The company knows it's the only game in town and has no incentive to meet ICE halfway, according to ICE's primary charter broker, explaining why it can't put any pressure on the subcontractor to come down on its rate.

Every now and then, my faith is restored that the markets really know how to do their job. I'll use this as a lesson tonight to teach my kid the basics about supply and demand, and about how actions have consequences.

This is a super illuminating piece that shows the complexity of immigration control, public protest, and the business of deportation. Because ICE has garnered so much criticism few companies want to risk a public backlash and run the agency's charters. In fact, only one does it, which means it can charge

This is a super illuminating piece that shows the complexity of immigration control, public protest, and the business of deportation. Because ICE has garnered so much criticism few companies want to risk a public backlash and run the agency's charters. In fact, only one does it, which means it can charge whatever it wants.

Justin shows here how much this lack of competition is costing US taxpayers. It doesn't mean we should support all of ICE's activities but it does expose a dark side to an already dark law enforcement project.

It's the most wonderful time of the year?

New planet, same problems

The way we colonize Mars says a lot about how we address climate change. Is repeating our mistakes on another planet the answer to our existential crises?

The problems we’re solving for on Earth will only follow us to Mars

The most important sentence in this article for me is: “Imagine all the things we could do on Earth if we allocated an extra $22.6 billion to addressing climate change on our own planet?”.

Space exploration has undoubtedly kickstarted a raft of technological innovations we’ve all benefited from (insulin

The most important sentence in this article for me is: “Imagine all the things we could do on Earth if we allocated an extra $22.6 billion to addressing climate change on our own planet?”.

Space exploration has undoubtedly kickstarted a raft of technological innovations we’ve all benefited from (insulin pumps, solar cells, artificial limbs to name a few). So in my mind, it’s only worth spending all this money on getting to and living on Mars, if in doing so, we develop technology that also helps us solve all our very real problems here on Earth.

What's your cause?

The real life Irishman

Roll credits 🎬

Close
"Breaking our back": Food banks are drowning in milk China won't buy

"Breaking our back": Food banks are drowning in milk China won't buy

Read more on New Food Economy

Contributions

  • I maintain that this policy is surprisingly clever and has the potential to be very beneficial— I’m entirely ok with tax dollars being used to distribute food to the poor, and I prefer this to plain old farm subsidies. However, by suddenly starting the program on a massive scale, the government is overwhelming

    I maintain that this policy is surprisingly clever and has the potential to be very beneficial— I’m entirely ok with tax dollars being used to distribute food to the poor, and I prefer this to plain old farm subsidies. However, by suddenly starting the program on a massive scale, the government is overwhelming food banks and charities that ordinarily receive and distribute non-perishable products.

    The policy’s implementation was clearly rushed to counter falling Chinese imports, but that’s not a bad thing. The farmers get the money right away, and seriously: would you rather keep shipping our farm products halfway around the world to sell, or would you rather just give the bounty of our spectacular agricultural sector straight to the poor and hungry in our own communities? I know what I’d choose.

    The idea of the federal government purchasing surplus farm products and distributing them to communities is great, but the government needs to actually commit to the distribution part— perhaps by providing the recipient food banks with appropriate refrigerated storage at no cost, by giving more notice ahead of time, and by spreading out purchases and distribution over time so that the surplus donations are both reliable and predictable.

    The article says that the program is “designed to put money in producers’ pockets. Hunger-relief programs are just a convenient way to get rid of all that extra food.” But that doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea, just that it’s been poorly executed. It could be a win-win for farmers and charities alike— a convenient way to get rid of extra food, encourage farmers to maintain production with less regard for the ups and downs of international markets, AND to feed the hungry.

    The overly-negative tone of the article is frustrating; I feel like it was written by a partisan liberal determined never to write about anything attached to Trump in even a mildly positive way. The author spends nearly the entire article talking about the logistical problems, then near the end mentions that “everyone [she] spoke with was generally positive about the trade mitigation program.” It’s pretty embarrassing— you have to trash one of the best and most logical federal policies in years just to make a political hit-piece against Trump/the GOP? They don’t generate enough material on their own? As a left-leaner, shouldn’t you just be happy that the government is actively feeding the hungry on a national scale? Is that not a key progressive policy goal?

    Food banks being overwhelmed and filled to the brim with foodstuffs is not the worst problem to have— the solution is to simply improve their storage and distribution capacity. Note that charities are allowed to turn away donations if they truly can’t handle the influx, and the government is providing at least some funding to help with distribution. Basically all the problems could very reasonably be considered growing pains. The only real risk would be if the government suddenly cut funding to the program— not impossible considering the disorganized shitshow that is the Trump administration, but only a hypothetical danger and very unlikely. Again, this program is nothing but helpful for everyone involved in it. I hope to see it expand in the future and continue forever.