Daily Archives: June 20, 2022

Out with the old: is neoliberalism really dying? – The New Statesman

Posted: June 20, 2022 at 3:10 pm

The term neoliberalism is ubiquitous in political debate across the West. It commonly serves as a political affront, a synonym for capitalism red in tooth and claw. But since at least 2018, and the publication of Quinn Slobodians Globalists: The End of Empire and the Birth of Neoliberalism, historians have countered this habit; they remind us that the word was coined in the 1930s by intellectuals precisely to signal their break with 19th-century traditions of liberalism no less than with contemporary libertarianism.

The American historian Gary Gerstle belongs to neither camp. In The Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order: America and the World in the Free Market Era, his recent book and self-declared history of our times, Gerstle employs the term neoliberal to designate a particular American political order. Order here is a term of art; Gerstle defines it as a constellation of ideologies, policies, and constituencies that shape American politics in ways that endure beyond the two-, four- and six-year election cycles. This is far from elegant, but the basic notion is clear enough: Republicans and Democrats take turns in governing, but the parties do so within overarching frameworks of what constitutes legitimate government conduct, which can outlast multiple presidencies.

A sign of an established political order is that the party initially resisting this orders core ideas eventually caves in and implements policies similar to those of the ideological victors. Franklin Roosevelt inaugurated the New Deal order in the early 1930s, but its crucial consolidation happened two decades later under a Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower (whose inaugural address was hailed by Lyndon Johnson as a very good statement of Democratic programmes of the last 20 years).In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan proved the ideological architect of neoliberalism, but Bill Clinton, writes Gerstle, played the role of key facilitator the Eisenhower of the centre left, acquiescing in the neoliberal order.

[see also: Britains pass neoliberalism could leave it at a permanent disadvantage]

Gerstle rightly stresses that a political order what others have called a regime and what the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci famously named cultural hegemony cannot be established without an appeal to moral ideals. It is a mistake to view the past 40 years or so as a triumph for what is often misleadingly called market fundamentalism.

Sign up for The New Statesmans newsletters Tick the boxes of the newsletters you would like to receive. The Crash A weekly newsletter helping you fit together the pieces of the global economic slowdown. Morning Call Quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics from the New Statesman's politics team. World Review The New Statesmans global affairs newsletter, every Monday and Friday. The New Statesman Daily The best of the New Statesman, delivered to your inbox every weekday morning. Green Times The New Statesmans weekly environment email on the politics, business and culture of the climate and nature crises - in your inbox every Thursday. The Culture Edit Our weekly culture newsletter from books and art to pop culture and memes sent every Friday. Weekly Highlights A weekly round-up of some of the best articles featured in the most recent issue of the New Statesman, sent each Saturday. Ideas and Letters A newsletter showcasing the finest writing from the ideas section and the NS archive, covering political ideas, philosophy, criticism and intellectual history - sent every Wednesday. Events and Offers Sign up to receive information regarding NS events, subscription offers & product updates.

The resistance to the New Deal (and varieties of social democracy in Europe) was justified in the name of morality, not material well-being. Economics are the method, Margaret Thatcher declared in 1981, the object is to change the soul. Her denial of there being such a thing as society is usually misinterpreted: she was not making the case for selfish individualism; rather, Thatcher was calling for people to be responsible for themselves, with the help of strong families and the living tapestry of something like civil society (rather than relying on the state). The fierce lay Methodist preacher turned prime minister wanted her flock to be morally, and practically, disciplined. Had Thatchers (and Reagans) doctrine simply come down to Gordon Gekkos greed is good, it is hard to see how neoliberalism could ever have become the regnant doctrine of our age.

Gerstle shrewdly observes that ideological coherence is overrated. A political order will always contain tensions or even outright contradictions, which can be sources of strength: different outlooks will attract different constituencies. Neoliberalism had a distinctly neo-Victorian strand stressing family values neoconservatism plus the morals Thatcher had in mind when she sought to change British souls. But another strand, Gerstle writes, was a form of cosmopolitanism more akin to libertarianism: a supposedly deeply egalitarian and pluralistic belief in open borders and diversity resulting from different people freely mixing. It took both the stern moralistic mistress Thatcher and the easy-going, formerly dope-smoking sax player Clinton (plus Cool Britannia Blair) to make neoliberalism truly dominant in the Western world.

[ See also: Download the brand new NS App ]

But the danger is that if an order can contain everything and its opposite, the concept loses force in explaining historical outcomes; while, politically, it might seem that resistance to it was futile all along. Gerstle struggles to make good on the claim that the New Left should be seen as part of the neoliberal ascendancy. Although there is a way to get from Haight Ashbury in San Francisco one birthplace of the Sixties countercultural movement to Silicon Valley, its a rather tortuous one, and you have to leave plenty of left-wing ideals by the wayside: corporate Americas selective appropriation of creativity and all its talk of diversity does not prove that left-wing radicals inadvertently helped establish the neoliberal order. True, as Gerstle points out, both neoliberals and the leftist Ralph Nader, whose Naders Raiders public interest advocates and watchdogs played roles in the Carter administration, and both cared about consumers more than the fate of workers. But the former celebrated supposedly free choice as consumer sovereignty, whereas the latter sought to use government to protect consumers after all, unlike Hobbess sovereign, the consumer is not immortal when car manufacturers neglect safety for profit, as Naders famous 1965 book, Unsafe at Any Speed, argued.

Gerstles ecumenical perspective on what can count as a source of neoliberalism is the result of stressing broad continuities between 19th-century liberal ideals of autonomy and individuality and contemporary neoliberalism. Representatives of liberalism added the neo, Gerstle claims, because by the 1930s progressives and social democrats had stolen the term liberal for their state programmes. But those who added the neo did not show a particular concern with what Gerstle calls one of historys great terminological heists. They felt instead that 19th-century-style laissez-faire had been at least partly responsible for the political and economic catastrophes they were witnessing. They wanted a strong state which actively curated competitive markets and made sure that individual citizens through religion, family values, and so on remained morally robust characters ready to face daily struggles under capitalism. It is true that 19th-century liberals hadnt called for the abolition of government either; but their nightwatchman state was rather more restrained than the neoliberal policeman-preacher state which would actively discipline both markets and people.

In any case, who stole which term from whom is not so obvious: social democrats in the early 20th century including some New Liberals such as Leonard Hobhouse in Britain argued that socialism was the legitimate heir of liberalism. Liberals had failed to understand the socio-economic preconditions of freedom; precisely because they prioritised freedom, rather than equality, socialists would now build welfare states that provided the security needed for the unfolding and flourishing of individuality. In their own minds, social democrats were fulfilling what Gerstle calls the original liberal promise of emancipation.

If neoliberalism was less about freedom than about discipline, the image of Clinton and Tony Blair as converts to market competition and cosmopolitanism but somehow still hip-ish at heart becomes more complicated. After all, Clinton also presided over mass incarceration and workfare programmes designed to discipline supposedly lazy folks; meanwhile, Blairs authoritarian streak manifested in ever more surveillance of British society and policy innovations such as the Asbo and attempts to introduce ID cards.

[see also: Hillary Clinton: I dont think the media is doing its job]

While Clinton and Blair were cheerleaders for technology and globalisation, it is harder to see that their stances really amounted to cosmopolitanism in any meaningful sense: borders might have become more porous, but hardly open; these Third Way leaders celebrated diversity, but did not push for global equality in the sense of anything like worldwide redistribution of resources. Here, the dangers of writing the history of ones own time become apparent: what looks like an even-handed analysis of left and right in fact adopts some of the ideological frames of todays populist right (which relentlessly accuses liberals of being rootless cosmopolitans sneering at poor somewheres).

In other respects, Gerstle reminds us of recent forgotten history that continues to shape our world. He details how under Reagan, TV and radio were liberated from regulations meant to give voice to a variety of political positions; the results were the right-wing talk radio hosts and Fox News, who today are closer to steering the Republican Party, rather than merely serving as its propaganda wing. Clinton acquiesced, not even trying to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine Reaganites had abolished. Gerstle also shows how the political arch-enemies of the 1990s Clinton and House speaker Newt Gingrich worked together behind the public scenes of political and personal invective to give Silicon Valley the lax internet legislation it craved.

The financial crisis of 2008 is the obvious moment analogous to the stagflation of the 1970s with which to begin the story of the neoliberal orders decline and fall. But other failures early this century also undermined confidence in freedom-as-deregulation, especially the foreign disasters caused by George W Bush & Co, who assumed, with capitalism unleashed, Iraq would flourish overnight. The notion that one need not plan or pay much attention to policy details because government never worked well anyway was propounded by Reagan, but the former Hollywood actor actually relied on experienced Republican bureaucrats to restructure the American state; the triumphalist Bushies, by contrast, had started to believe their own propaganda.

The two most surprising political careers of the past decade are Gerstles main proof that the neoliberal order is falling apart: he avoids the facile symmetry in portraying Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders as a right-wing and left-wing populist respectively. True, both attacked free-trade orthodoxies. But one has been a mortal danger to democracy; the other, while attacking Wall Street, is still a politically moderate figure by the standards of, for example, 1970s Scandinavia. The ways they benefited from the specifics of the Obama presidency the last real neoliberal in power also differed drastically: Trump promised to restore white supremacy; Sanders thundered that the Obama administration, still dominated by Nineties neoliberals like Larry Summers, had been soft on finance after 2008.

Is neoliberalism dying? It is remarkable that terms such as oligarchy are no longer seen as evidence of un-American sectarianism in Democratic primary debates. At the same time, if Gerstle is right, and the path to every new order is created by countless activists and intellectuals, it seems a stretch to claim that socialists are taking over the Democratic Party. Trump did brag about factories relocating to the US but working-class conservatism remains a chimera, both intellectually and politically: it lacks coherent policies no less than an actual vehicle to achieve power (the current Republican Party isnt it). Meanwhile, what Gerstle calls Trumps ethno-nationalism he could have used a less polite term was not as much of a break with the Reagan formula than often suggested; after all, Reagan combined white supremacy (but softened by charm and Hollywood-honed humour) with paeans to the market and the military.

Gerstle stresses the importance of the communist threat in legitimating the New Deal and Republican acquiescence to it: the US had to offer workers something to blunt the Soviets critique of capitalism. By implication, the discrediting of communism by the 1970s (if not before) was a boon for neoliberals, who then also a point Gerstle underplays used international institutions such as the World Trade Organisation to entrench their beliefs in a global order. But Chinas Leninist version of capitalism does not provide a real alternative; and while Covid may have re-legitimated certain forms of state action, it would be a mistake to think that the anti-libertarian lessons of the pandemic are self-explanatory: plenty of people assumed 2008 would automatically help the left; the political force that benefited most from it turned out to be the Tea Party.

A somewhat similar theory of political time and long-term trends in American politics, by the political scientist Stephen Skowronek, suggests that a new regime (Skowroneks term for Gerstles order) will only be established after a decisive repudiation of the existing one. In 1980, Reagan won 44 out of 50 states; in 1984 he carried all but one. Some had expected Biden to achieve something similar after Trumps shambolic presidency, which never mind the ethno-nationalism produced no real legislative success other than yet another massive tax break for the wealthiest. But the repudiation failed to materialise. We might have to live in the ruins of the old order for quite some time, without anything new being constructed. And as Gramsci pointed out, a political interregnum gives birth to monsters.

The Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order: America and the World in the Free Market EraGary GerstleOxford University Press, 272pp, 21.99

Read the original post:
Out with the old: is neoliberalism really dying? - The New Statesman

Posted in Libertarianism | Comments Off on Out with the old: is neoliberalism really dying? – The New Statesman

10 Popular Video Game Debates That Need To Die – WhatCulture

Posted: at 3:10 pm

Video games eh? What a lovely, open-minded, welcoming community that deals with differences of opinion in a safe, constructive and supportive manner.

LOL.

Yeah, turns out the 21st century's defining hobby inspires a lot of the 21st century's other defining hobbies: Bitching, moaning and most of all, arguing.

It can be about anything, from the minutiae of League of Legends lore and whether Smash Bros is an E-Sport, to if VR gaming will ever take off and which games are worth pre-ordering, along with everything in between.

Now, if any industry is worth this level of scrutiny, it's gaming. God knows there's more than enough shady practises to go around and a consumer base this switched on and opinionated could be an asset to it.

The problem is a number of the most well-worn video game arguments have more or less been ended already. And yet on they go, droning, stumbling and thrashing like a zombie with added "well actually".

Well, call me Jill Valentine, because I'm about to mow these arguments down. Not with a weapon, but with a top ten list. And I always double tap.

This is an argument that has been thrown around since the very birth of the medium. And I do mean the very beginning!

The first video games weren't just Pong and Space Invaders - text-based role playing games were asking serious questions of their players way back in the late seventies.

Today, mainstream, multi-million dollar franchises like Mass Effect ask its players to think about what constitutes humanity. Bioshock builds entire worlds to examine extreme libertarianism and extreme communitarianism. Untitled Goose Game lets you be a horrible goose.

And people question the artistic validity of the medium?!

Seriously though, at their best, video games offer an artistic experience like no other: The ability to examine yourself through choice.

When playing Dishonoured, is your first instinct to kill your enemies or sneak past? In Fallout, who do you ally with and who do you oppose? What does Harry Du Bois become in your hands, in Disco Elysium?

If that doesn't make gaming an art form to you, perhaps you should think about what *does* constitute an art form.

Here is the original post:
10 Popular Video Game Debates That Need To Die - WhatCulture

Posted in Libertarianism | Comments Off on 10 Popular Video Game Debates That Need To Die – WhatCulture

Antitrust showdown: Big Tech CEOs head to D.C. to lobby against legislation – WRAL TechWire

Posted: at 3:09 pm

By Brian Fung, CNN

As Senate lawmakers embark on a final, urgent push to pass landmark antitrust legislationto reshape the tech industry, Big Tech is bringing out its heaviest hitters to influence the members whose votes could decide the bills fate.

Next week, Google CEO Sundar Pichai will travel to Washington to meet with US lawmakers, two people familiar with the plans said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the visit publicly.

Pichais trip comes after Apple CEO Tim Cook was spotted roaming the Senate last week. (Apple did not respond to questions on Cooks visit at the time.) It also follows a report byPoliticothat Amazon CEO Andy Jassy has directly called multiple members of Congress to express opposition to the bill. In a statement, an Amazon spokesperson told CNN that Jassy meets with policymakers on both sides of the aisle regarding policy issues that could affect our customers.

Pichai is expected to meet with both Republicans and Democrats, one of the people said, and in addition to antitrust issues, the meetings may also cover a recent bipartisan push to develop digital privacy legislation. Pichai could also face questioning from Republican lawmakers who believe Google discriminates against conservatives, the people said.

Regulators warn big tech, including Meta more antitrust enforcement coming

We regularly engage with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle on a range of issues including economic growth, small business support, immigration reform and cybersecurity, said Jose Castaeda, a Google spokesperson. Well continue to engage on issues relevant to people and businesses using our products.

The CEOs hands-on engagement highlights the stakes of the next few months for the tech industry in Washington.

Congress is considering multiple antitrust bills, beginning with legislation led by Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Chuck Grassley that could erect strict barriers between a tech giants various lines of business. The proposal represents a direct challenge to Big Techs business models that encourage consumers to use multiple interlocking services owned by the same company.

Under the bill, for example, Google could be prevented from ranking its own restaurant reviews or YouTube links above other sites in search results, and Amazon could be prevented from selling its own branded goods on the e-commerce marketplace it currently shares with third-party sellers.

The tech industry has said the bill would threaten many features and services that consumers have come to depend on and that make their lives easier.

Seal your social rating software in vault then drop it to the ocean floor

Backers of the bill the American Innovation and Choice Online Act have pushed for a Senate floor vote within the next few weeks, and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is said to be open to bringing the bill to the floor provided it has sufficient support.

Against that backdrop, the tech industry and its allies have sought to peel support away from the bill with a lobbying effort. In the first quarter of 2022, Apple spent $2.5 million on lobbying, a quarterly record for the company. Over the same period, Google spent $3.5 million, Amazon $5.3 million and Meta $5.4 million. Industry groups have spent millions on ads opposing the antitrust legislation.

Heightening the sense of urgency is the fact that Congress is running out of time to act this year. Surging consumer prices, the continuing war in Ukraine and the Jan. 6 hearings have dominated the congressional agenda. Once lawmakers break for August recess, few expect much progress in the fall, when the midterm elections are expected to take precedence. And a potential Republican takeover of Congress could also reshape the legislative landscape for Big Tech.

The-CNN-Wire & 2022 Cable News Network, Inc., a WarnerMedia Company. All rights reserved.

Link:

Antitrust showdown: Big Tech CEOs head to D.C. to lobby against legislation - WRAL TechWire

Posted in Big Tech | Comments Off on Antitrust showdown: Big Tech CEOs head to D.C. to lobby against legislation – WRAL TechWire

Opinion | Big Tech content licensing agreements have left smaller publishers out in the cold – Toronto Star

Posted: at 3:09 pm

During the 2021 federal election campaign, several political parties made commitments to introduce news remuneration legislation.

Why is such legislation needed?

First, the need for strong, independent local news has never been higher it keeps communities connected and informed on issues that are impacting them directly. Covering city hall, provincial and territorial legislatures, our courts, and holding parliamentarians to account is vital to our democracy.

Second, there is a significant imbalance of power between tech giants and Canadian news outlets. To put this in perspective, the market capitalization of Google is about $2.3 trillion; Meta (Facebook) is over half a trillion. Together, thats larger than the GDP of Canada, Brazil, Italy or India. On a combined basis, these companies take of online ad revenues stands at more than 80 per cent. And the pandemic has only worsened the situation.

Third, with the prospect of Canadian legislation, Google and Meta negotiated content licensing agreements with a dozen or so news publishers, including large players like the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star. These publishers should be getting compensated for their content. But we now have a situation of haves and have-nots among Canadas news publishers, with Google and Meta picking the winners and losers. And thats not fair especially to many smaller publishers who have been left out in the cold.

In April, Canadian Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez introduced Bill C-18, the Online News Act. Our organizations, which represent hundreds of trusted news titles in every province and territory, support this legislation for three reasons.

First, it allows us publishers to come together and negotiate collectively. Currently, the Competition Act bars us from forming a collective. Given the overwhelming power imbalance, we will be in a stronger bargaining position if we stand together.

Second, it includes an enforcement mechanism. Baseball-style final offer arbitration ensures that parties put their best offer forward and the arbitrator picks one or the other. The hammer of arbitration incentivizes both sides to reach a fair settlement on their own.

Third, similar legislation in Australia is working. According to Rod Sims, the former chair of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the amounts paid to news organizations were over $200 million. More important than how much is who reached content licensing agreements. Country Press Australia, an affiliation of 160 smaller regional newspapers, was able to reach settlements with Google and Meta. More recently, a group of 24 small Australian publishers reached a deal with Google. To its credit, Google has signed a content licensing agreement with every eligible Australian publisher.

While collective negotiation offers clear benefits to publishers, theres still a big question to answer. How should members of each collective organize themselves it in a way that is inclusive, fair and transparent to all its members?

News Media Canada and the National Ethnic Press and Media Council of Canada believe that publishers large and small should benefit equally from any settlement, based on their proportionate investment in newsroom employees. Simply put, any settlements from collective negotiation would be shared among publishers on a pro-rata basis based on their total salaries and wages paid to eligible newsroom employees.

Bill C-18 builds on the success of Australias News Media Bargaining Code. While not a silver bullet, it brings the value of trustworthy, high-quality Canadian journalistic content to readers through more licensing deals, which will allow more publishers to reinvest in their newsrooms and in their digital business transformations.

Paul Deegan is president and CEO of News Media Canada. Maria Saras-Voutsinas is executive director of the National Ethnic Press and Media Council of Canada.

Original post:

Opinion | Big Tech content licensing agreements have left smaller publishers out in the cold - Toronto Star

Posted in Big Tech | Comments Off on Opinion | Big Tech content licensing agreements have left smaller publishers out in the cold – Toronto Star

Big Tech begs Congress to pass $52bn chip subsidies bill – The Register

Posted: at 3:09 pm

Big Tech in America has had enough of Congress' inability to pass pending legislation that includes tens of billions of dollars in subsidies to boost semiconductor manufacturing and R&D in the country.

In a letter [PDF] sent to Senate and House leaders Wednesday, the CEOs of Alphabet, Amazon, Dell, IBM, Microsoft, Salesforce, VMware, and dozens of other tech and tech-adjacent companies urged the two chambers of Congress to reach consensus on a long-stalled bill they believe will make the US more competitive against China and other countries.

"The rest of the world is not waiting for the US to act. Our global competitors are investing in their industry, their workers, and their economies, and it is imperative that Congress act to enhance US competitiveness," said the letter.

Organized by the Semiconductor Industry Association, the missive is also signed by top executives in the semiconductor industry, including AMD CEO Lisa Su, Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger, GlobalFoundries CEO Thomas Caufield, Micron Technology CEO Sanjay Mehrotra, and Nvidia General Counsel Timothy Teter.

The association said it hopes the final legislation will include a measure for investment tax credits that semiconductor manufacturing and design companies can advantage of in addition to the $52 billion in chip subsidies that has been the heart of the bill.

The letter is yet another sign of frustration from tech executives after a US competitiveness bill has stalled in Congress for several months. The House of Representatives passed its version of the legislation in February while the Senate passed its version in June 2021, but the Senate and House have been attempting to reconcile differences in their respective chip subsidies bills, but such efforts have faltered recently.

"We've already wasted several quarters since the Senate acted last year, and now it's time for us to move forward rapidly," Intel's Gelsinger told Congress back in March.

At issue is the problem that the US has been trailing Asian countries in the past few decades in semiconductor manufacturing. This has resulted in the US share of chipmaking falling from 37 percent in 1990 to 12 percent today. Meanwhile, 80 percent of chip production happens in Asia.

Tech companies and government officials have pushed for chip subsidies for multiple reasons: fighting against future chip shortages and inflation; reducing reliance on chipmakers in Asia; hedging against future geopolitical instability, particularly in light of concerns about Chinese aggression against Taiwan; and growing US manufacturing jobs.

Bloomberg reported last week that the legislation "risks collapsing in Congress" in the face of increased skepticism from Republicans, plus the fact that the country is facing other issues, like the seemingly never-ending problem of gun violence.

Bloomberg's report said there are concerns from some Democrats and Republicans that the White House hasn't been doing enough to rally Congress, particularly House members, around the bill. At the same time, White House officials complained that the private sector hasn't done enough in communicating to politicians the importance of passing the bill.

That complaining seemed to work, given that the Semiconductor Industry Association managed to get executives at more than 120 companies to sign Wednesday's letter. While the letter is rather short, it got to the point in the second paragraph:

While many of the signatories of the Wednesday letter represent US companies, there are a few foreign firms represented too, most notably chip foundry giants TSMC and Samsung.

The two Asian semiconductor behemoths are hoping to get their share of US chip subsidies since Taiwan-based TSMC and South Korea's Samsung are in the midst of multibillion-dollar plans to build new manufacturing plants in Arizona and Texas, respectively.

The companies, which have benefited from generous support in their home countries, spoke out in March about the need for the US to consider foreign firms when giving out chip cash. The concerns were made after Intel once proposed that the funding only be used for domestic companies, a matter that the x86 giant has since become silent on.

"Arbitrary favoritism and preferential treatment based on the location of a company's headquarters is not an effective or efficient use of the grant and ignores the reality of public ownership for most of the leading semiconductor companies," TSMC said in a statement to the US Department of Commerce in March.

In all, there are a lot of companies, both foreign and domestic, that are hoping the US will use taxpayer dollars to boost chip manufacturing and research. But we understand why it's been difficult to make the bill a priority, given several compounding issues facing the US, including gun violence, inflation, and attempts to subvert democracy, just to name a few.

Link:

Big Tech begs Congress to pass $52bn chip subsidies bill - The Register

Posted in Big Tech | Comments Off on Big Tech begs Congress to pass $52bn chip subsidies bill – The Register

Was Basman right? Iconoclasm, ridicule and chess – TheArticle

Posted: at 3:08 pm

A new book brings to mind two quotations from great minds, one a chess Grandmaster, the other one of the greatest of satirists.

AronNimzowitsch once wrote:Ridicule can do much, for instance embitter the existence of young talents; but one thing is not given to it, to put a stop permanently to the incursion of new and powerful ideas. Nimzowitsch, it will be recalled, formed the inspiration for much of Marcel Duchamps love of chess.

Meanwhile, the following (probably apocryphal) quotation is attributed to the philosophe and wit Voltaire (pictured above): I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

The book, written jointly by the English International Master MichaelBasmanand the Dutch expert, Gerard Welling, isU Cannot Be Serious! AvantGardestrategy in Chess,published by Thinkers Publishing. It amounts to an anthology ofBasmansbest games, featuring the extraordinary flankstrategies whichhe has developed. His illustrious victims include Grandmasters John Nunn, Jon Speelman, Tony Miles, Dragoljub Velimirovic, Vladimir Savon, UlfAndersson, Alban Planinc, Henrique Mecking, Jonathan Tisdalland James Plaskett.

I say that I recall the two quotes, since on the one hand I doubt the ultimate soundness of Basmansmore extreme concepts, yet, on the other, I absolutely defend his right both to deploy and explain his outr ideas.

Indeed, amongst much contumely heaped uponBasmanseccentricities, I am mentioned in despatches in the book as a lone voice crying in the wilderness, lauding his adventurous spirit. (See my article Basmaniaat the Benedictine in the journalModern Chess Theory, 1982.) Co-author Welling refers to this article but sadly no link is available since I wrote it in the Cretaceous period of chess evolution.

Here is how Welling describes the intervention of iconoclasm into the theory of chess openings:

Modern chess is getting to be more and more a young man s game. Over the last decades, with the growth of internet and the development of chess engines, high quality chess material has become readily available. And the young generation knows how to put these opportunities into effect, the result being a much larger pool of strong players than the aged authors have ever witnessed in their respective primes. Openings are researched and tested with the strongest computer programs; this has led to a revival of concrete evaluation of positions and the good old intuition being pushed towards the background. Contemporary chess is lively and we see experimental approaches, but in general backed up with accurate calculation.

When a player has the impertinence to open a game with 1. h3 and follows up 1 e5 2. a3, howls of protest descend from the internet forums. The least practised players especially backed up with their Stockfish engines are quick to abuse the player who had the impudence to sin against their feeling of what correct chess is supposed to be. It is easy enough to attack a skilful player of an experimental inclination, shielding oneself behind the back of the champions (and their supposed opinions on chess matters) or the negative balance in fractions of pawns (!) that an engine indicates. But is it fair to attack a player who plays a couple of unusual moves when the critic does not understand what is happening on the board? It is easy to demonise a move, but it is the underlying idea that should be understood, before it can be contradicted.

Michael Basman has been an avant-garde strategist on the chessboard from his early days as a tournament player and has collected his share of ridicule and scorn throughout the years. But he has also been fairly successful, so we can ask ourselves: who has been right, the master or his critics? Former world champion Mikhail Botvinnik saw through the facade of experimental play and named Basman a creative and talented player.

But on the British player s home turf, there was often sharp rejection of his way of playing chess. Interesting wins were more than once described as lucky, and losses as the natural consequence of sins against chess. Even in the late 1970s, when Mike Basman was a household name in British chess, British Chess Magazine was still writing he was handicapping himself by his unfortunate opening choices. An interesting exception to this trend was Grandmaster Raymond Keene, who back in 1982 wrote an extensive article on Basman s games from the Benedictine Masters in Manchester. He praised the strategical ideas but criticised the implementation. And he finished his article with an example of how these ideas could have found a place in one s own strategic arsenal.

Of course, as a kind of counterweight, avant-garde chess has a cult-following of players that catch the spark of inspiration, study the examples and often copy the ideas. Co-author Gerard Welling was an example of a player that borrowed some ideas from Michael Basman, and even went so far as to play 1. Nf3 h6 in a decisive match in the semi-finals of the Dutch Championship 36 years ago (he won, and qualified). The study of experimental players can widen your horizons and give you new ideas. Even a celebrated chess trainer like Mark Dvoretsky has given this advice. So be critical, but keep an open mind!

Basmanis, indeed, one of the most original thinkers on the current chess scene. He specialises in almost mystical pawn sacrifices and edge-of-the-board strategies, which can confuse the strongest of opponents.

This week I give some spectacular tactical wins byBasmanarising from hiscunning flank encroachments.The first game was played inBasmans debut appearance in the Hastings Premier, where he completely outplayed the Red Czar of Soviet Chess, the great Mikhail Botvinnik. Botvinnik was extremely lucky to escape with a draw.

The most impressive game has Basman playing Black against Grandmaster Henrique Mecking. The Brazilian Mecking was the outstanding prodigy of the day, who went on to become a world championship Candidate. It is enthralling to see howBasmanencroaches from both flanks and then strikes downMeckingsking.

For anyone who mistakenly believes that all chessstrategies have been discovered,Basmans and Wellings book is a blast of fresh oxygen. We might well say, with Hamlet, that there aremore things in heaven and earththan are dreamt of in your philosophy. The most amazing development is that even the reigning world champion, Magnus Carlsen, and other leading grandmasters are now resorting to openings which would have had Capablanca, Alekhine and Botvinnik revolving in their sarcophagi. It must now be apparent, even to one afflicted by the most egregiously struthonian ultracrepidarianism , that there is something in the Zeitgeist which is justifying even the wilder shores of Basmaniac iconoclasm.

Basmans draw v BotvinnikBasmans win v Mecking Basmans win v John Nunn Basmans win v Speelman Carlsen s win against Maghsoodloo

Raymond Keene s latest book Fifty Shades of Ray: Chess in the year of the Coronavirus , containing some of his best pieces from TheArticle, is now available from Blackwell s .

We are the only publication thats committed to covering every angle. We have an important contribution to make, one thats needed now more than ever, and we need your help to continue publishing throughout the pandemic. So please, make a donation.

Originally posted here:

Was Basman right? Iconoclasm, ridicule and chess - TheArticle

Posted in Chess Engines | Comments Off on Was Basman right? Iconoclasm, ridicule and chess – TheArticle

Formula 1 Canadian Grand Prix Is Today: How to Watch the Race Live – CNET

Posted: at 3:08 pm

F1 racing returns to North America this week for the Canadian Grand Prix in Montreal. During yesterday's qualifying races, Max Verstappen secured his dominance by finishing over half a second faster than his competitors. The Red Bull driver will start today's round of the 2022 F1 World Championship from pole position.

Verstappen sits comfortably atop the Drivers' Championship standings after winning last week's race in Azerbaijan. His teammate Sergio Perez is right behind him in second place. Charles Leclerc of Ferrari faced engine trouble and did not finish last week's race, which dropped him down to third in the standings. Meanwhile, Mercedes megastar Lewis Hamilton has yet to win a race in 2022 and is currently stuck in sixth.

The Canadian Grand Prix will air on Sunday, June 19 at 1 p.m. ET (11 a.m. PT) on ABC, with postrace coverage appearing on ESPN 3.

Will Leclerc put his engine troubles behind him and continue his assault on Verstappen and Red Bull? Will Hamilton manage to claw his way back into contention?

Those looking to follow all the drama will need access to ABC, ESPN, ESPN 2 and ESPNews in order to catch every second of the action all season long. The entire race weekend, including practice sessions and qualifying, will be shown in the US on ESPN's family of television networks.

No single provider has exclusive rights to the network, so there are plenty of ways to get ESPN and watch the races without cable. We've broken down everything you need to know in order to stream F1 races this season.

Max Verstappen looks to solidify his lead in the Drivers' Championship on Sunday in the Canadian Grand Prix.

What is F1 and how is it different from IndyCar?

Both IndyCar and F1 are open-wheeled, single-seater racing formats. This means that the cars can only fit one person and have uncovered wheels that protrude from the body of the vehicle. Despite their basic similarities, F1 and IndyCar offer very different experiences.

In F1, there are only 10 teams, with two drivers apiece for a total of 20 drivers. Most races must go for 305 km, which is about 190 miles. Each driver needs to use two different tires in the race, so a pit stop is mandatory, though cars are not allowed to refuel. Races average around two hours in length and are held at venues all over the world.

Teams spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year developing their cars. All cars must have certain elements -- for example, gearboxes must have eight gears plus a reverse and last for six consecutive races -- but teams have leeway to tweak and change some parts of their car, including their engines, in the pursuit of speed.

In contrast, the cars featured in IndyCar are more standardized. They all have the same aerodynamic kit and chassis and can only be powered by one of two engines -- either a Honda or a Chevrolet. That said, teams are allowed to develop some of their own parts, like dampers and some of their suspensions.

IndyCar races occur on a wide range of tracks, from fast ovals to road and street courses. The length of the races also varies, with some, like the Indianapolis 500, lasting 500 laps and taking over three hours to complete. Not surprisingly, refueling during pit stops is a big part of the strategy during IndyCar races. Teams can field more than two cars, meaning that the amount of drivers on the grid fluctuates from race to race.

IndyCar is mostly considered an American sport and does not have the same level of money and glamour associated with it compared to the globe-hopping F1 circuit.

Why should I care about F1?

F1 races might best be described as a sort of action-packed chess match that takes place while drivers are throttling around a track at close to 200 mph. Teams need both strategy and skill to compete against some of the best minds in motorsports.

F1 is also full of strong personalities. The Netflix documentary series F1: Drive to Survivefollows many of the teams and drivers over the course of a year and has helped raise the profile of the sport in the US. Released in March, season four of the series chronicles last year's tight championship race between rivals Verstappen and Hamilton. It also focuses on the internal battles between drivers on the same team, while giving viewers a peek into the tense, pressurized world of elite racing.

Does F1 stream on ESPN Plus?

ESPN does not air any F1 coverage on its ESPN Plus streaming service. If you want to watch the practices or races you will need a television provider of some kind or to pay for F1's $80 per season TV Pro subscription.

Races are held on Sunday and are usually spaced two weeks apart. Here's the entire schedule, all times ET:

Race weekends normally start on Friday with multiple practice runs and continue on Saturday with qualifying. The races themselves take place Sunday. ESPN typically airs practices and qualifying on a mix of ESPN 2 and ESPNews, while the races tend to air on ESPN. F1 events in North America often land on ABC.

Here are some of the best ways to catch the entire race weekend without cable.

You can catch the entire race weekend with a subscription to YouTube TV. ABC, ESPN, ESPN 2 and ESPNews are all included in the package, which means you'll have all the channels you need in order to watch every second of the action.

Read our YouTube TV review.

Hulu Plus Live TV is a little more expensive than YouTube TV, but it also offers all the channels you need to watch every second of race weekend. As an added bonus, Hulu Plus Live TV comes with the rest of the Disney Bundle, which includes a subscription to Disney Plus, as well as ESPN Plus. F1 races don't air on ESPN Plus, but the service offers a ton of other content for die-hard sports fans.

Read our Hulu Plus Live TV review.

Sling TV's $35 Orange plan might be a good choice for F1 fans who are primarily looking to just watch the races on Sundays. This plan is one of the cheapest ways to get access to ESPN and ESPN 2. Those looking for ESPNews will have to opt for the $11 Sports Extra ad-on. Sling TV lacks ABC, which could be a problem for fans hoping to catch the F1 races in North America.

Read our Sling TV review.

FuboTV costs $70 per month and includes ABC, ESPN and ESPN 2. The base package lacks ESPNews, but you can add it for an extra $8 a month with the Fubo Extra Package or pay for the $80-a-month Elite streaming tier that includes Fubo Extra. Check out whichlocal networks FuboTV offers here.

Read our FuboTV review.

DirecTV Stream is the most expensive live TV streaming service. Its cheapest, $70-a-month Plus package includes ESPN, ESPN 2 and ABC, but you'll need to move up to the $90-a-month Choice plan to get ESPNews. You can use itschannel lookup toolto see which local channels are available in your area.

Read our DirecTV Stream review.

For gearheads looking to get every angle on the action, F1 offers its own streaming service. F1 TV Pro costs $80 per season and gives fans access to all races from F1, F2, F3 and Porsche Supercup. You'll be able to livestream every track session from all F1 grand prix and have access to all driver onboard cameras and team radios. You'll also be able to watch full on-demand races, replays and highlights, along with F1's historic race archive.

F1 also offers a TV Access Plan for $27 per year, which only gives you on-demand access to races once they have been completed. Users will still be able to view all F1 onboard cameras, along with full replays of F1, F2, F3 and Porsche Supercup. It also includes the historic race archive.

Go here to read the rest:

Formula 1 Canadian Grand Prix Is Today: How to Watch the Race Live - CNET

Posted in Chess Engines | Comments Off on Formula 1 Canadian Grand Prix Is Today: How to Watch the Race Live – CNET

Sentience is the wrong discussion to have on AI right now – TechTalks

Posted: at 3:08 pm

This article is part ofDemystifying AI, a series of posts that (try to) disambiguate the jargon and myths surrounding AI.

The past week has seen a frenzy of articles, interviews, and other types of media coverage about Blake Lemoine, a Google engineer who told The Washington Post that LaMDA, a large language model created for conversations with users, is sentient.

After reading a dozen different takes on the topic, I have to say that the media has become (a bit) disillusioned with the hype surrounding current AI technology. A lot of the articles discussed why deep neural networks are not sentient or conscious. This is an improvement in comparison to a few years ago, when news outlets were creating sensational stories about AI systems inventing their own language, taking over every job, and accelerating toward artificial general intelligence.

But the fact that were discussing sentience and consciousness again underlines an important point: We are at a point where our AI systemsnamely large language modelsare becoming increasingly convincing while still suffering from fundamental flaws that have been pointed out by scientists on different occasions. And I know that AI fooling humans has been discussed since the ELIZA chatbot in the 1960s, but todays LLMs are really at another level. If you dont know how language models work, Blake Lemoines conversations with LaMDA seem almost look surrealeven if they had been cherry-picked and edited.

However, the point I want to make here is that sentience and consciousness is not the best discussion to have about LLMs and current AI technology. A more important discussion would be one about human compatibility and trust, especially since these technologies are being prepared to be integrated into everyday applications.

The workings of neural networks and large language models have been thoroughly discussed in the past week (I strongly recommend reading Melanie Mitchells interview with MSNBC for a balanced account of how LaMDA and other LLMs work). I would like to give a more zoomed-out view of the situation, starting with human language, with which LLMs are compared.

For humans, language is a means to communicate the complicated and multi-dimensional activations happening in our brains. For example, when two brothers are talking to each other and one of them says mom, the word is associated with a lot of activations in different parts of the brain, including memories of her voice, face, feelings, and different experiences from the distant past to (possibly) recent days. In fact, there might be a huge difference between the kind of representations that the brothers hold in their brains, depending on the experiences that each has had. The word mom, however, provides a compressed and well-represented approximation that helps them agree on the same concept.

When you use the word mom in a conversation with a stranger, the difference between the experiences and memories becomes even wider. But again, you manage to reach an agreement based on the shared concepts that you have in your minds.

Think of language as a compression algorithm that helps transfer the enormous information in the brain to another person. The evolution of language is tied directly to experiences weve had in the world, from physical interactions in our environment to social interactions with other fellow humans.

Language is built on top of our shared experiences in the world. Children know about gravity, dimension, physical consistency of objects, and human and social concepts such as pain, sadness, fear, family, and friendship even before uttering their first word. Without those experiences, language has no meaning. This is why language usually omits commonsense knowledge and information that interlocutors share. On the other hand, the level of shared experience and memory will determine the depth of conversation you can have with another person.

In contrast, large language models have no physical and social experience. They are trained on billions of words and learn to respond to prompts by predicting the next sequence of words. This is an approach that has yielded great results in the past few years, especially after the introduction of the transformer architecture.

How do transformers manage to make very convincing predictions? They turn text into tokens and embeddings, mathematical representations of words in a multi-dimensional space. They then process the embedding to add other dimensions such as the relations between the words in a sequence of text and their role in the sentence and paragraph. With enough examples, these embeddings can create good approximations of how words should appear in sequences. Transformers have become especially popular because they are scalable: Their accuracy improves as they become larger and are fed on more data, and they can be mostly trained through unsupervised learning.

But the fundamental difference remains. Neural networks process language by turning them into embeddings. For humans, language is the embedding of thoughts, feelings, memory, physical experience, and many other things that we have yet to discover about the brain.

This is why it is fair to say that despite their immense advances and impressive results, transformers, large language models, deep neural networks, etc. are still far from speaking our language.

A lot of the discussions today are about whether we should assign attributes such as sentience, consciousness, and personhood to AI. The problem with these discussions is that they are focused on concepts that are vaguely defined and mean different things to different people.

For example, functionalists might argue that neural networks and large language models are conscious because they manifest (at least in part) the same kind of behavior that you would expect from a human, even though they are built on a different substrate. Others might argue that organic substance is a requirement for consciousness and conclude that neural networks will never be conscious. You can throw in arguments about qualia, the Chinese room experiment, the Turing test, etc., and the discussion can go on forever.

However, a more practical question is, how compatible are current neural networks with the human mind, and how far can we trust them with critical applications? And this is an important discussion to have because large language models are mostly developed by companies that seek to turn them into commercial applications.

For example, with enough training, you might be able to train a chimpanzee to ride a car. But would you put it behind a steering wheel on a road that pedestrians will be crossing? You wouldnt, because you know that however smart they are, chimpanzees dont think in the same way as humans and cant be given responsibility for tasks where human safety is concerned.

Likewise, a parrot can be taught many phrases. But would you trust it to be your customer service agent? Probably not.

Even when it comes to humans, some cognitive impairments disqualify people from taking on certain jobs and tasks that require human interactions or regard human safety. In many cases, these people can read, write, speak fluently, and remain consistent and logical in lengthy conversations. We dont question their sentience or consciousness or personhood. But we know that their decisions can become inconsistent and unpredictable due to their illness (see the case of Phineas Gage, for example).

What matters is whether you can trust the person to think and decide as an average human would. In many cases, we trust people with tasks because we know that their sensory system, common-sense knowledge, feelings, goals, and rewards are mostly compatible with ours, even if they dont speak our language.

What do we know about LaMDA? Well, for one thing, it doesnt sense the world as we do. Its knowledge of language isnt built on the same kind of experiences as ours. Its commonsense knowledge is built on an unstable foundation because theres no guarantee that large amounts of text will cover all the things we omit in language.

Given this incompatibility, how far can you trust LaMDA and other large language models, no matter how good they are at producing text output? A friendly and entertaining chatbot program might not be a bad idea as long as it doesnt steer the conversation into sensitive topics. Search engines are also a good application area for LLMs (Google has been using BERT in search for a few years). But can you trust them with more sensitive tasks, such as an open-ended customer service chatbot or a banking advisor (even if they have been trained or finetuned on a ton of relevant conversation transcripts)?

My thinking is that well need application-specific benchmarks to test the consistency of LLMs and their compatibility with human common sense in different areas. When it comes to real applications, there should always be clearly defined boundaries that determine where the conversation becomes off-limits for the LLM and should be handed to a human operator.

A while back, I wrote an essay on problem finders and problem solvers. Basically, what I said is that human intelligence is about finding the right problems and artificial intelligence (or the AI we have today) is about solving those problems in the most efficient manner.

We have seen time and again that computers are able to find shortcuts for solving complicated problems without acquiring the cognitive abilities of humans. Weve seen it with checkers, chess, Go, programming contests, protein folding, and other well-defined problems.

Natural language is in some ways different but also similar to all those other problems AI has solved. On the one hand, transformers and LLMs have shown that they can produce impressive results without going through the process of learning language like a normal human, which is to first explore the world and understand its basic rules and then acquire the language to interact with other people based on this common knowledge. On the other hand, they lack the human experience that comes with learning language. They can be useful for solving well-defined language-related problems. But we should not forget that their compatibility with human language processing is limited and thus we should be careful how far we trust them.

More:

Sentience is the wrong discussion to have on AI right now - TechTalks

Posted in Chess Engines | Comments Off on Sentience is the wrong discussion to have on AI right now – TechTalks

Headlines at 10:30 am on 20th June 2022 – The Indian Express

Posted: at 3:08 pm

You are listening to the Expresso News Update. Here is the latest news from The Indian Express.Let us begin with the top headline: The military leadership yesterday ruled out the rollback of the Agnipath scheme, even as thousands of aspirants continue to protest across the country, and many Opposition parties also lent their support to the protesters, asking the government to rethink or rollback the new policy.

As the protests didnt let up for the fifth day, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh met with the service chiefs for the second time in two days. Army Chief General Manoj Pande, Navy Chief Admiral R Hari Kumar and Air Force Chief Marshal VR Chaudhari met Singh yesterday morning. The three chiefs had met Singh Saturday as well.Amid continuous protests happening across the country over the Agnipath Scheme, a senior Army official Lt General Anil Puri, Additl Secy, Dept of Military Affairs said that there is no place for indiscipline in the Armed Forces and all candidates will have to give a written pledge that they did not indulge in any arson or violence.

In other news: Prime Minister Narendra Modi launched the torch relay for the 44th Chess Olympiad at Indira Gandhi Stadium in Delhi. Addressing the event, the PM said, New Indias youth is excelling in every sport. Theyre making records. We won 7 medals in Tokyo Olympics and 19 in the Paralympics. We also won Thomas Cup after many decades

External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar has said India is looking forward to working on new areas of cooperation with Bangladesh, which include artificial intelligence, cyber security, start-ups and fintech.

Jaishankar, who held a bilateral meeting with visiting Foreign minister of Bangladesh, A K Abdul Momen, said, We now look forward to working with you to take our ties to new domains Artificial Intelligence, cyber security, startups, fintech.

The seventh round of the India-Bangladesh Joint Consultative Commission (JCC) was held in New Delhi on Sunday.Moving on to some other national news: In seperate incidents, two SpiceJet aircraft returned to their airports of origin shortly after take-off yesterday with one suffering a bird hit in Patna and the other from Delhi facing a technical glitch that led to a cabin pressurisation issue. In a third incident, an IndiGo aircraft turned back to Guwahati a few minutes after takeoff due to a bird hit.

All the three incidents will be probed by the aviation safety regulator DGCA.

On Sunday afternoon, a Delhi-bound Boeing 737-800 operated by the Gurugram-based low-cost airline made an emergency landing in Patna, minutes after take-off from there, after one of its engines suffered a bird hit. The aircraft was carrying 185 passengers and six crew members.Meanwhile, a day after an Islamic State-claimed attack on one of the main gurdwaras in Kabul that killed two people and injured at least three, the Indian government granted visas to 111 Afghan Sikhs who wanted to come to the country.

Sources said the decision to grant the e-visas were taken within hours of the attack, which took place on Saturday when 25-30 Afghan Sikhs and Hindus had gathered at Gurdwara Dashmesh Pita Guru Gobind Singh Karte Parwan, the central gurdwara of the Afghan Sikh community in Kabul, for the Sukhmani Sahib or morning prayers. A group of gunmen, believed to be around four in number, stormed the gurdwara and opened fire.

In some political news: Polling for 46 municipalities in Haryana registered a 10 percentage point drop from last years voter turnout amid ongoing protests against the Agnipath scheme.

Election officials told The Indian Express that at 6 pm, the voter turnout was 70.4 per cent and was expected to touch 72 per cent as poll booths saw queues till late evening. According to an official, the voting in 42 of the 46 municipalities was nearly 80 per cent in 2016; voting in the remaining four municipalities started this year.

An official said the protests against the Agnipath scheme might be a reason behind the low turnout this time even though there were no major protests reported on Sunday.Lastly, amid continuing protests against the Agnipath military recruitment scheme, the Opposition raised pitch for its withdrawal, with Congress general secretary Priyanka Gandhi Vadra appealing to the youth to recognise fake nationalists and RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav asking if the RSS has a hidden agenda behind the scheme.

Speaking at the Congresss satyagraha against the scheme at Jantar Mantar, Priyanka said the Congress supports the struggle of the youth, who should fight to bring to power a government which represents true patriots.

She said: Follow democratic means, walk on the path of truth and non-violence and bring down this government. You should strive to bring a government which shows true patriotism.

You were listening to the Expresso News Update by The Indian Express. Ask your digital assistant device to play the latest news from the Indian Express tostay up to date with the most accurate and reliable updates.

Read more:

Headlines at 10:30 am on 20th June 2022 - The Indian Express

Posted in Chess Engines | Comments Off on Headlines at 10:30 am on 20th June 2022 – The Indian Express

Debt Consolidation Vs. Bankruptcy: What Is The Difference? Forbes Advisor – Forbes

Posted: at 3:06 pm

Editorial Note: We earn a commission from partner links on Forbes Advisor. Commissions do not affect our editors' opinions or evaluations.

If youre looking for a way out from under overwhelming credit card bills and other debt, bankruptcy could wipe out your balances and offer a fresh start. But filing for bankruptcy has downsides, so you might consider debt consolidation as a way to simplify your finances and pay off debt faster.

Debt consolidation and bankruptcy are two very different things, though both can provide relief when debt seems hopeless. Understanding the differences between debt consolidation and bankruptcy can help you make the right choice if you find yourself buried under bills.

Featured Partner Offer

Fee for Settlement

18% to 25%

On Nationaldebtrelief.com's Secure Website

Debt consolidation is a financial strategy for paying off debt. Though it might be considered a form of debt relief, you wont be forgiven any of your debt; instead, you trade it all in for one new loan, often at a much lower cost.

Debt consolidation might involve getting a personal loan from a bank or credit union, taking out a home equity loan or line of credit (HELOC), or applying for a 0% APR balance transfer credit card to swallow up your existing balances.

Another form of debt consolidation is offered by consumer credit counseling agencies: debt management. If youre having trouble paying your debts and your credit score isnt good enough to qualify for a debt consolidation loan, you can enlist a credit counselor to work with your creditors to make your debt easier to pay off.

There are a few good reasons to pursue debt consolidation:

Lets take a closer look at a few types of debt consolidation and how they work:

Debt Consolidation Loan: You could reorganize your debts by replacing them with a single debt consolidation loan, which might take the form of a personal loan or home equity loan. You pay off your existing debts, then roll them into the consolidation loan. Debt consolidation simplifies your debt and can cut your interest costs if you qualify for a lower APR (annual percentage rate) than youve been paying on your previous debts.

Credit Card Balance Transfer: If you have good enough credit, you might be able to consolidate debt by transferring your existing balances to a 0% APR balance transfer credit card. Note that the cards are interest-free for a limited time, so you need to make sure you pay off the entire debt before the regular (and often high) APR kicks in.

Debt Consolidation Through Credit Counseling: A nonprofit consumer counseling agency can put you on a debt management plan that will consolidate your debt into one big monthly payment to the agency, which then pays your creditors. You get points for making on-time payments, your credit score wont be affected, and you can save on interest and fees.

Instead of taking out a new loan or working with a credit counseling agency, you could try to renegotiate your debts with your creditors, maybe by asking for a payments pause or a lower interest rate. Theres no guarantee theyll say yes.

Another option is debt settlement, which involves working out a deal with your creditorseither on your own or with the help of a debt settlement companyto pay off your debt in a lump sum for less than you owe. Debt settlement can be risky and can hurt your credit, so its generally not the smartest option.

Bankruptcy is a legal procedure that can wipe out your debts and give you a clean slate, or provide you with a plan to pay off your creditors within three to five years.

The downside is that bankruptcy can stay on your credit report as a black mark for up to a decade, making it harder for you to take out new loans. Not all debts can be discharged, or eliminated, through bankruptcy; back child support, alimony, past-due taxes and student loans usually cannot be erased.

Bankruptcy has consequences and can be an emotionally difficult and lengthy process. However, if your debts are unmanageable and unpayable and you want to make a fresh start at rebuilding your finances, bankruptcy might be the best choice.

Bankruptcy is a form of legal protection for borrowers; its part of the social safety net for consumers who get into money trouble or suffer financial setbacks. But many people might prefer to find another way to deal with overwhelming debt.

Americans usually have two bankruptcy options to choose from: Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 bankruptcy.

Chapter 7: This type of bankruptcy is intended for people who lack the financial means to make debt payments. Chapter 7 puts a halt to collection efforts and can eventually cancel many kinds of debt. In exchange, the debtor must agree to give up some personal property so it can be sold to pay off creditors, though most assetsincluding home equity, cars and jewelryare usually exempt.

Chapter 13: Often called repayment plan bankruptcy or wage earners bankruptcy, Chapter 13 requires you to agree to make payments to your creditors over the course of three to five years. Once the repayment plan is completed, remaining debt may be forgiven. Debts typically discharged through Chapter 13 bankruptcy include credit card balances, medical debts and other unsecured personal debts.

As part of the bankruptcy filing process, debtors are required to take a credit counseling course. But turning to a nonprofit consumer credit counseling agency is a good idea long before you decide to seek protection from your creditors through the bankruptcy courts.

Credit counseling can help you evaluate your options and explore whether a debt management plan could help you get out of debt without having to go through the bankruptcy process.

Other alternatives to dealing with debt through bankruptcy include: selling some belongings youre no longer using to help pay down what you owe; taking on a part-time job or side hustle to boost your income; and borrowing money from family and friends to repay your creditors. But be careful with that last one, because if you dont pay back a friend or relative you risk ruining the relationship.

Bankruptcy marks you in the eyes of the financial industry as a borrower who is not creditworthy, and that negative mark stays on your credit report for seven years in the case of Chapter 13 bankruptcy, and 10 years when you file Chapter 7.

Meanwhile, debt consolidation can help improve your credit. A debt consolidation loan pays off your existing balances and leaves you with one monthly bill. A loan with a lower APR can allow you to save money and find extra room in your monthly budgetmaking your debt easier to handle.

To answer that question and make the right choice for your situation, compare your options side by side.

When debt is a problem, you may find that neither debt consolidation nor bankruptcy is the right solution.

Heres another idea: Consult a consumer credit counseling agency. These nonprofit organizations can help you understand your options and will recommend a plan to get you out of debt.

If you dont have good credit and may have trouble qualifying for a lower-APR debt consolidation loan, a credit counselor can provide expert advice and work with you to come up with a debt management plan. The counselor also can help you explore whether bankruptcy is the best choice for your situation.

Free, No-commitment Estimate

Filing for bankruptcy is a multistep process that requires you to pull together tax returns and other documents, attend mandatory credit counseling sessions, fill out lots of forms, and go to the U.S. bankruptcy court for your ZIP code with your paperwork and required fees (again, $338 for Chapter 7 and $313 for Chapter 13) in hand.

You can file for bankruptcy on your own, without an attorney, but thats not recommended. Free legal assistance may be available if you qualify.

Whether you file for Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy, the process is complex and can take anywhere from a few months to more than a year.

In a Chapter 7 proceeding, the judge might require you to surrender some personal possessions to pay creditors. In a Chapter 13 case, youll have to agree to a repayment plan to give back some of the money you owe over the next few years.

A bankruptcy attorney can navigate you through it all, and help you understand what to expect.

A Chapter 7 bankruptcy stays on your credit report as a black mark for up to 10 years. A Chapter 13 bankruptcy will remain on your credit report as negative information for as long as seven years.

Theres no specific limit on the number of times you can file for bankruptcy, though you can receive debt relief from bankruptcy only once every several years.

For example, if you filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, you cannot discharge debts again via Chapter 7 for eight years. If you used Chapter 7 previously, you must wait four years to try to discharge more debts via Chapter 13.

Rolling your debts into a lower-interest debt consolidation loan is trickier if you have bad credit. A lender may look at your lackluster credit score, assume youll have difficulty repaying the loan and reject your application. The best debt consolidation loans for bad credit tend to come from online lenders that are more willing to say yesif youre willing to accept a higher interest rate.

See more here:

Debt Consolidation Vs. Bankruptcy: What Is The Difference? Forbes Advisor - Forbes

Posted in Bankruptcy | Comments Off on Debt Consolidation Vs. Bankruptcy: What Is The Difference? Forbes Advisor – Forbes