Foundations
Here's a look at documents from U.S. foundations
Featured Stories
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: U.S. Loan to Argentina is a Bet on Javier Milei's Reforms
LOS ANGELES, California, July 17 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by Research Director Geoffrey Lawrence:
* * *
The U.S. loan to Argentina is a bet on Javier Milei's reforms
Argentina's economic turnaround will depend on whether President Javier Milei can overcome political opposition and deliver lasting reforms.
-
Late last year, the United States effectively loaned $20 billion to the Argentine central bank, which immediately drew criticism as a "bailout." Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) even responded by introducing the "No Bailout for Argentina Act" in Congress, ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, July 17 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by Research Director Geoffrey Lawrence: * * * The U.S. loan to Argentina is a bet on Javier Milei's reforms Argentina's economic turnaround will depend on whether President Javier Milei can overcome political opposition and deliver lasting reforms. - Late last year, the United States effectively loaned $20 billion to the Argentine central bank, which immediately drew criticism as a "bailout." Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) even responded by introducing the "No Bailout for Argentina Act" in Congress,though it has not received a hearing.
This skepticism is understandable, but the loan is not a gift. In fact, it's a continuation of a long-running series of multilateral financing for successive Argentine governments that the Trump administration hopes will allow President Javier Milei to continue advancing economic liberalization.
On Oct. 9, 2025, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced that the United States had agreed to a $20 billion currency swap with Argentina's central bank using available dollars in the Treasury's Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF). The ESF is a reserve pool originally created by Congress in 1934 to defend the dollar's global value, and it held approximately $35 billion in liquid assets prior to the agreement. The treasury secretary holds broad statutory authority to use this fund to purchase foreign currencies and deploy resources in support of U.S. economic and foreign policy interests without any congressional approval needed for particular disbursements.
A currency swap is a type of loan in which the U.S. Treasury, in this case, purchases pesos from Argentina's central bank in exchange for dollars, providing Buenos Aires with hard-currency reserves it can use to defend its exchange rate, service external obligations, and signal to private investors that the country has a credible monetary backstop. Argentina ultimately must buy its pesos back with dollars to restore the ESF's position. By late October, Argentina had drawn just $2.5 billion of the available $20 billion. Neither government has publicly disclosed the arrangement's full terms, including its duration or the interest rate Argentina must pay, a lack of transparency that has drawn legitimate congressional scrutiny.
This swap comes atop a substantial prior multilateral commitment. Earlier in 2025, the International Monetary Fund (IMF)'s executive board approved a 48-month Extended Fund Facility arrangement totaling $20 billion, constituting the IMF's 23rd loan program to Argentina since 1958. The World Bank and Inter-American Development Bank added another $22 billion in parallel financing. The treasury swap is thus not a standalone intervention but an additional layer of lending capacity aimed at sustaining market confidence in Argentina's latest iteration of economic reform so that private dollars will flow.
Whether that confidence is warranted begins with an honest accounting of Argentine financial history. The country has defaulted on its sovereign debt nine times, which is more than any other large country. The catastrophic default of 2001 led to a rapid freefall in the value of the peso that wiped out people's savings, led to banking freezes, and produced five presidential resignations within a period of weeks. Argentina defaulted again in 2014 and 2020. By 2023, it carried the world's highest inflation rate, and more than half its population lived in poverty. In 1910, Argentina was richer on a per capita basis than France or Germany, but today it has been reduced to a cautionary tale of self-inflicted decline through prolonged government deficits financed by money printing.
It was this accumulated catastrophe that generated the political conditions allowing libertarian economist Milei to become president. A rising generation of young Argentines has never known monetary or economic stability and craves the conditions that lead to opportunity. Pre-election surveys found 68 percent of voters between the ages of 16 and 24 backed Milei. Academics documented the emergence of mejorismo--a generational worldview crystallized through a decade of stagnation, COVID lockdowns, and chronic institutional failure--as a visceral rejection of everything that had come before. This would be expressed in the vocabulary of libertarianism as an ultimate rejection of the collectivist ideology that has dominated the country since the first presidency of Juan Peron and throughout its long period of economic decline.
Milei's first two years gave his supporters genuine reason for confidence. He converted a fiscal deficit exceeding five percent of GDP into a primary surplus within a single year and reduced monthly inflation from 25.5% in December 2023 to 1.5% by mid-2025. His party then vastly outperformed expectations in the October 2025 midterms, strengthening his congressional hand. As a condition of the April IMF arrangement, Argentina lifted most capital controls and replaced its fixed exchange rate with a managed float--a significant and necessary step toward monetary normalization.
Yet, after nearly a century of economic collectivism, the reforms that would make Argentina genuinely creditworthy on market terms remain incomplete. The most consequential unfinished business is to fix a tax code that punishes entrepreneurship and encourages a shocking share of the country to interact in illicit markets to evade taxation. When considering Argentina's 155 different tax levies, the combined effective corporate tax burden amounts to more than 106 percent of earnings for the average firm according to World Bank estimates. That's the highest effective corporate tax rate among all large countries and shows it's literally impossible to pay all the taxes. This reality has hollowed out the tax base by pushing both firms and individuals underground, with 44.1% of the employed adult workforce indicating they work in unregistered (In American terms, under-the-table) arrangements.
And the managed exchange rate band, while an improvement, is only a half-measure. Milei campaigned on recognizing the U.S. dollar as the official national currency. Informally, dollars are already widely used in Argentina because they are a better store of value than pesos. Argentines hold an estimated $200 to $270 billion in U.S. dollars. Meanwhile, the dollar value of all pesos in circulation is only around $15 billion. Nearly all real estate transactions occur in dollars. The Argentine people want dollars even if, and largely because, the government has used the issuance of new pesos to finance spending it can't otherwise afford. The market-based alternative to official dollarization is to allow the peso to trade freely without state intervention, but Milei has cautioned that speculators might respond by increasing prices, which would lead to a self-fulfilling fear of renewed inflation.
Ultimately, IMF loans and Treasury swap lines are just credit instruments meant to buy time. If liberalization reforms are sufficiently pervasive, Argentina could become a new global destination for private capital. Billionaire investor Peter Thiel seems to think so, as he recently made headlines by moving to Argentina part-time.
The Trump administration has made a calculated wager on an Argentine government that has demonstrated genuine willingness to absorb political pushback from entrenched interest groups to achieve structural change. But it pays off only if Milei remains committed to--and can secure congressional approval for--an ambitious agenda of liberalization.
* * *
Geoffrey Lawrence is research director at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/the-u-s-loan-to-argentina-is-a-bet-on-javier-mileis-reforms/
* * *
The U.S. loan to Argentina is a bet on Javier Milei's reforms
Argentina's economic turnaround will depend on whether President Javier Milei can overcome political opposition and deliver lasting reforms.
-
Late last year, the United States effectively loaned $20 billion to the Argentine central bank, which immediately drew criticism as a "bailout." Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) even responded by introducing the "No Bailout for Argentina Act" in Congress, ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, July 17 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by Research Director Geoffrey Lawrence: * * * The U.S. loan to Argentina is a bet on Javier Milei's reforms Argentina's economic turnaround will depend on whether President Javier Milei can overcome political opposition and deliver lasting reforms. - Late last year, the United States effectively loaned $20 billion to the Argentine central bank, which immediately drew criticism as a "bailout." Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) even responded by introducing the "No Bailout for Argentina Act" in Congress,though it has not received a hearing.
This skepticism is understandable, but the loan is not a gift. In fact, it's a continuation of a long-running series of multilateral financing for successive Argentine governments that the Trump administration hopes will allow President Javier Milei to continue advancing economic liberalization.
On Oct. 9, 2025, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced that the United States had agreed to a $20 billion currency swap with Argentina's central bank using available dollars in the Treasury's Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF). The ESF is a reserve pool originally created by Congress in 1934 to defend the dollar's global value, and it held approximately $35 billion in liquid assets prior to the agreement. The treasury secretary holds broad statutory authority to use this fund to purchase foreign currencies and deploy resources in support of U.S. economic and foreign policy interests without any congressional approval needed for particular disbursements.
A currency swap is a type of loan in which the U.S. Treasury, in this case, purchases pesos from Argentina's central bank in exchange for dollars, providing Buenos Aires with hard-currency reserves it can use to defend its exchange rate, service external obligations, and signal to private investors that the country has a credible monetary backstop. Argentina ultimately must buy its pesos back with dollars to restore the ESF's position. By late October, Argentina had drawn just $2.5 billion of the available $20 billion. Neither government has publicly disclosed the arrangement's full terms, including its duration or the interest rate Argentina must pay, a lack of transparency that has drawn legitimate congressional scrutiny.
This swap comes atop a substantial prior multilateral commitment. Earlier in 2025, the International Monetary Fund (IMF)'s executive board approved a 48-month Extended Fund Facility arrangement totaling $20 billion, constituting the IMF's 23rd loan program to Argentina since 1958. The World Bank and Inter-American Development Bank added another $22 billion in parallel financing. The treasury swap is thus not a standalone intervention but an additional layer of lending capacity aimed at sustaining market confidence in Argentina's latest iteration of economic reform so that private dollars will flow.
Whether that confidence is warranted begins with an honest accounting of Argentine financial history. The country has defaulted on its sovereign debt nine times, which is more than any other large country. The catastrophic default of 2001 led to a rapid freefall in the value of the peso that wiped out people's savings, led to banking freezes, and produced five presidential resignations within a period of weeks. Argentina defaulted again in 2014 and 2020. By 2023, it carried the world's highest inflation rate, and more than half its population lived in poverty. In 1910, Argentina was richer on a per capita basis than France or Germany, but today it has been reduced to a cautionary tale of self-inflicted decline through prolonged government deficits financed by money printing.
It was this accumulated catastrophe that generated the political conditions allowing libertarian economist Milei to become president. A rising generation of young Argentines has never known monetary or economic stability and craves the conditions that lead to opportunity. Pre-election surveys found 68 percent of voters between the ages of 16 and 24 backed Milei. Academics documented the emergence of mejorismo--a generational worldview crystallized through a decade of stagnation, COVID lockdowns, and chronic institutional failure--as a visceral rejection of everything that had come before. This would be expressed in the vocabulary of libertarianism as an ultimate rejection of the collectivist ideology that has dominated the country since the first presidency of Juan Peron and throughout its long period of economic decline.
Milei's first two years gave his supporters genuine reason for confidence. He converted a fiscal deficit exceeding five percent of GDP into a primary surplus within a single year and reduced monthly inflation from 25.5% in December 2023 to 1.5% by mid-2025. His party then vastly outperformed expectations in the October 2025 midterms, strengthening his congressional hand. As a condition of the April IMF arrangement, Argentina lifted most capital controls and replaced its fixed exchange rate with a managed float--a significant and necessary step toward monetary normalization.
Yet, after nearly a century of economic collectivism, the reforms that would make Argentina genuinely creditworthy on market terms remain incomplete. The most consequential unfinished business is to fix a tax code that punishes entrepreneurship and encourages a shocking share of the country to interact in illicit markets to evade taxation. When considering Argentina's 155 different tax levies, the combined effective corporate tax burden amounts to more than 106 percent of earnings for the average firm according to World Bank estimates. That's the highest effective corporate tax rate among all large countries and shows it's literally impossible to pay all the taxes. This reality has hollowed out the tax base by pushing both firms and individuals underground, with 44.1% of the employed adult workforce indicating they work in unregistered (In American terms, under-the-table) arrangements.
And the managed exchange rate band, while an improvement, is only a half-measure. Milei campaigned on recognizing the U.S. dollar as the official national currency. Informally, dollars are already widely used in Argentina because they are a better store of value than pesos. Argentines hold an estimated $200 to $270 billion in U.S. dollars. Meanwhile, the dollar value of all pesos in circulation is only around $15 billion. Nearly all real estate transactions occur in dollars. The Argentine people want dollars even if, and largely because, the government has used the issuance of new pesos to finance spending it can't otherwise afford. The market-based alternative to official dollarization is to allow the peso to trade freely without state intervention, but Milei has cautioned that speculators might respond by increasing prices, which would lead to a self-fulfilling fear of renewed inflation.
Ultimately, IMF loans and Treasury swap lines are just credit instruments meant to buy time. If liberalization reforms are sufficiently pervasive, Argentina could become a new global destination for private capital. Billionaire investor Peter Thiel seems to think so, as he recently made headlines by moving to Argentina part-time.
The Trump administration has made a calculated wager on an Argentine government that has demonstrated genuine willingness to absorb political pushback from entrenched interest groups to achieve structural change. But it pays off only if Milei remains committed to--and can secure congressional approval for--an ambitious agenda of liberalization.
* * *
Geoffrey Lawrence is research director at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/the-u-s-loan-to-argentina-is-a-bet-on-javier-mileis-reforms/
Lumina Foundation Issues Commentary: Your Best Student Success Strategy? Let Advisors Advise
INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana, July 16 -- The Lumina Foundation issued the following commentary by strategy officer for student success Katy Launius and Wendy Sedlak, strategy director for research and evaluation:
* * *
Your best student success strategy? Let advisors advise
Advising is human work, and our systems should reflect that
-
Advisors are among the most consequential professionals on a college campus. But often the systems in place around them don't reflect that reality.
They wait in line at food pantry distributions to pick up groceries for student parents who take evening classes and ... Show Full Article INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana, July 16 -- The Lumina Foundation issued the following commentary by strategy officer for student success Katy Launius and Wendy Sedlak, strategy director for research and evaluation: * * * Your best student success strategy? Let advisors advise Advising is human work, and our systems should reflect that - Advisors are among the most consequential professionals on a college campus. But often the systems in place around them don't reflect that reality. They wait in line at food pantry distributions to pick up groceries for student parents who take evening classes andcan't make it during distribution hours. They walk students to the financial aid office and stay until they're seen, because an unanswered question at the wrong moment can cost a student their eligibility for next semester. They toggle through six or more tabs to complete a single advising appointment--documenting, cross-referencing, and copy-pasting across systems that were never designed to talk to each other.
They show up at classroom doors to make sure a student made it to class. They attend games and performances. They cheer from the bleachers. They contribute to GoFundMes.
They do this because they understand something the system hasn't fully caught up to: for many students, an advisor is the institution.
And yet, a significant chunk of their time is spent on registration logistics instead of advising students.
A new brief from Persistence Plus--based on 10 months of action research at Queensborough and Quinsigamond Community Colleges--puts a name to the problem. Current enrollment systems default to withdrawal: do nothing, and you're out. That's not a neutral design choice. It's a structural barrier that falls hardest on students with the least bandwidth to fight it, and it pulls advisors away from the work that actually moves the needle.
The brief argues for Continuous Enrollment--automatically placing students in the courses they need each term and shifting the default from "prove you want to come back" to "we expect you to succeed." Reducing registration friction frees advisors to focus on students' goals instead of navigating bureaucracy.
That's also the thinking behind Lumina's advising investments. Across our partnerships, we're working to remove administrative barriers so advisors can spend more time doing the work only humans can do, like building relationships, helping students plan for the future, and connecting them with support.
With NASPA, we're elevating advisors as campus leaders, identifying practitioners already driving change, and giving them a platform to shape the field. Jobs for the Future's Educational Plans at the Center of Holistic Advising is helping institutions redesign advising around students' goals instead of administrative checklists. And with One Million Degrees, we're investing in holistic coaching while helping colleges build sustainable financial models and thoughtfully integrate AI in strategies that strengthen the advisor-student relationship.
At Lumina, we're betting on advisors because these investments share a common premise: when we reduce friction for students, we expand capacity for advisors. A system that assumes students intend to persist--rather than requiring them to prove it every semester--allows advisors to do the job they were trained to do.
The Persistence Plus brief shows that if the only reason students see an advisor is because registration forces them to, that's a design problem worth solving, not a feature worth protecting.
We agree. Let advisors do what they do best: advise.
* * *
About the Authors
Katy Launius, Ph.D., is a strategy officer for student success, helping to shape and drive Lumina's community college success strategy.
Wendy Sedlak, Ph.D., is the strategy director for research and evaluation at Lumina Foundation, which works to help all Americans continue to learn and train after high school. Before joining Lumina, Sedlak worked at Equal Measure, where she directed projects to benefit students, including many complex national systems-change evaluations.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.luminafoundation.org/news-and-views/your-best-student-success-strategy-let-advisors-advise/
* * *
Your best student success strategy? Let advisors advise
Advising is human work, and our systems should reflect that
-
Advisors are among the most consequential professionals on a college campus. But often the systems in place around them don't reflect that reality.
They wait in line at food pantry distributions to pick up groceries for student parents who take evening classes and ... Show Full Article INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana, July 16 -- The Lumina Foundation issued the following commentary by strategy officer for student success Katy Launius and Wendy Sedlak, strategy director for research and evaluation: * * * Your best student success strategy? Let advisors advise Advising is human work, and our systems should reflect that - Advisors are among the most consequential professionals on a college campus. But often the systems in place around them don't reflect that reality. They wait in line at food pantry distributions to pick up groceries for student parents who take evening classes andcan't make it during distribution hours. They walk students to the financial aid office and stay until they're seen, because an unanswered question at the wrong moment can cost a student their eligibility for next semester. They toggle through six or more tabs to complete a single advising appointment--documenting, cross-referencing, and copy-pasting across systems that were never designed to talk to each other.
They show up at classroom doors to make sure a student made it to class. They attend games and performances. They cheer from the bleachers. They contribute to GoFundMes.
They do this because they understand something the system hasn't fully caught up to: for many students, an advisor is the institution.
And yet, a significant chunk of their time is spent on registration logistics instead of advising students.
A new brief from Persistence Plus--based on 10 months of action research at Queensborough and Quinsigamond Community Colleges--puts a name to the problem. Current enrollment systems default to withdrawal: do nothing, and you're out. That's not a neutral design choice. It's a structural barrier that falls hardest on students with the least bandwidth to fight it, and it pulls advisors away from the work that actually moves the needle.
The brief argues for Continuous Enrollment--automatically placing students in the courses they need each term and shifting the default from "prove you want to come back" to "we expect you to succeed." Reducing registration friction frees advisors to focus on students' goals instead of navigating bureaucracy.
That's also the thinking behind Lumina's advising investments. Across our partnerships, we're working to remove administrative barriers so advisors can spend more time doing the work only humans can do, like building relationships, helping students plan for the future, and connecting them with support.
With NASPA, we're elevating advisors as campus leaders, identifying practitioners already driving change, and giving them a platform to shape the field. Jobs for the Future's Educational Plans at the Center of Holistic Advising is helping institutions redesign advising around students' goals instead of administrative checklists. And with One Million Degrees, we're investing in holistic coaching while helping colleges build sustainable financial models and thoughtfully integrate AI in strategies that strengthen the advisor-student relationship.
At Lumina, we're betting on advisors because these investments share a common premise: when we reduce friction for students, we expand capacity for advisors. A system that assumes students intend to persist--rather than requiring them to prove it every semester--allows advisors to do the job they were trained to do.
The Persistence Plus brief shows that if the only reason students see an advisor is because registration forces them to, that's a design problem worth solving, not a feature worth protecting.
We agree. Let advisors do what they do best: advise.
* * *
About the Authors
Katy Launius, Ph.D., is a strategy officer for student success, helping to shape and drive Lumina's community college success strategy.
Wendy Sedlak, Ph.D., is the strategy director for research and evaluation at Lumina Foundation, which works to help all Americans continue to learn and train after high school. Before joining Lumina, Sedlak worked at Equal Measure, where she directed projects to benefit students, including many complex national systems-change evaluations.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.luminafoundation.org/news-and-views/your-best-student-success-strategy-let-advisors-advise/
Landmark ECOG-ACRIN ENDURANCE Study Co-Authored by International Myeloma Foundation Leaders Provides Evidence for Optimal Duration of Maintenance Therapy
NORTH HOLLYWOOD, California, July 16 (TNSjou) -- The International Myeloma Foundation issued the following news on July 14, 2026:
* * *
Landmark ECOG-ACRIN ENDURANCE Study Co-Authored by International Myeloma Foundation Leaders Provides Evidence for Optimal Duration of Maintenance Therapy
STUDIO CITY, CA -- Study results from the randomized, prospective phase III ENDURANCE (E1A11) trial, designed and conducted by the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (ECOG-ACRIN), were published today in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The study was co-authored by several members of the International Myeloma ... Show Full Article NORTH HOLLYWOOD, California, July 16 (TNSjou) -- The International Myeloma Foundation issued the following news on July 14, 2026: * * * Landmark ECOG-ACRIN ENDURANCE Study Co-Authored by International Myeloma Foundation Leaders Provides Evidence for Optimal Duration of Maintenance Therapy STUDIO CITY, CA -- Study results from the randomized, prospective phase III ENDURANCE (E1A11) trial, designed and conducted by the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (ECOG-ACRIN), were published today in the New England Journal of Medicine. The study was co-authored by several members of the International MyelomaFoundation (IMF) leadership who also serve on the ECOG-ACRIN Myeloma Committee, which led the study.
These investigators include Dr. S. Vincent Rajkumar, Chairperson of the IMF Board of Directors (Mayo Clinic -- Rochester, MN); Dr. Shaji Kumar, Member of the IMF Scientific Advisory Board (Mayo Clinic -- Rochester, MN); and Dr. Sagar Lonial, Vice Chairperson of the IMF Board of Directors (Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University -- Atlanta, GA).
The phase III ENDURANCE trial results showed that two years of maintenance therapy with lenalidomide provides the same long-term survival benefit as indefinite treatment until progression for patients with standard-risk multiple myeloma.
The trial enrolled 516 patients who have completed initial treatment but were not candidates for upfront stem cell transplantation. Participants were randomly assigned to receive lenalidomide either until progression, which is the current standard of care (indefinite duration group) or for a limited duration of 2 years. After nearly seven years of follow-up, overall survival rates were virtually identical: 68.6 percent in the indefinite treatment group versus 69.0 percent in the two-year limited duration group.
Compared to the limited duration group, indefinite duration of therapy was associated with higher rates of side effects, including fatigue, anemia, and diarrhea. The study also found a slightly higher incidence of second primary cancers over five years among patients who took the drug until progression.
"For years, patients and clinicians have been hesitant to stop lenalidomide maintenance because we didn't know how long was required for optimal benefit," said lead author Dr. Shaji Kumar, co-chair of the ECOG-ACRIN Myeloma Committee. "Our trial results show that two years is sufficient and that continuing the drug longer adds toxicity without extending life."
Dr. S. Vincent Rajkumar, senior author and chair of the ECOG-ACRIN Myeloma Committee, said: "Our findings suggest that a fixed-duration approach can become the new standard of care, at least for standard-risk patients, allowing us to pause treatment, monitor patients closely, with the option of potentially re-introducing lenalidomide or other new active treatments if the disease returns."
According to co-author Dr. Sagar Lonial, "this is the first randomized trial to show that limited duration lenalidomide maintenance does not sacrifice overall survival in the context of no transplant and triplet induction."
"The impact of these study results on patients cannot be overstated from a quality-of-life perspective," said Heather Cooper Ortner, IMF President and CEO. "For patients with standard-risk myeloma, knowing with confidence that they can safely discontinue treatment without compromising overall survival represents a remarkable advancement in personalized care. It means fewer side effects, less time on therapy, and greater freedom to focus on living their lives--not just managing their disease. This is exactly the kind of research that gives patients hope while bringing us closer to our ultimate goal: helping every patient live longer, better lives until we achieve a cure."
Multiple myeloma, a cancer of plasma cells, has seen dramatic advances in treatment over the past two decades. However, prolonged therapy has raised concerns about cumulative side effects and financial burden. This trial addresses a critical gap by proving that shorter, fixed-duration maintenance may not compromise efficacy. The results are particularly relevant for patients without high-risk cytogenetic risk factors and those who did not undergo stem cell transplantation, representing a large portion of the myeloma population.
* * *
The study was funded by the US National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute. Additional support was provided by Amgen. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01863550.
* * *
ABOUT MULTIPLE MYELOMA
Multiple myeloma is a cancer of the bone marrow plasma cells -- white blood cells that make antibodies. A cancerous or malignant plasma cell is called a myeloma cell. Myeloma is called "multiple" because there are frequently multiple patches or areas in bone where it grows. It often involves damage to bone and kidneys. Multiple myeloma is still incurable, but great progress has been made in terms of survival over the last two decades. The disease is twice as common and is diagnosed at a younger age in African Americans than white Americans. The most common presenting symptoms include fatigue and bone pain.
* * *
ABOUT THE INTERNATIONAL MYELOMA FOUNDATION
Founded in 1990, the International Myeloma Foundation (IMF) is the world's leading organization dedicated to multiple myeloma. The IMF is steadfast in its mission: accelerating the prevention and cure of myeloma and improving the quality of life for patients and families.
The IMF serves people impacted by myeloma at every stage of the disease by combining world-class research, trusted education, global advocacy, and direct support. A cornerstone of this work is the International Myeloma Working Group(R) (IMWG)--a network of more than 380 internationally renowned researchers and clinicians who establish the guidelines that shape how myeloma is diagnosed, treated, and managed across the globe.
Through its global network of support groups, educational programs, its 24/7 generative-AI myeloma assistant Myelo(R), its InfoLine, and its advocacy for greater healthcare access, the IMF helps people living with myeloma and their care partners navigate diagnosis, treatment, and survivorship. At the same time, the IMF ensures scientific advances translate into better care and outcomes.
Learn more at www.myeloma.org or contact the IMF InfoLine at (800) 452-CURE (2873) (U.S. & Canada), +1 (818) 487-7455 (worldwide), or infoline@myeloma.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.myeloma.org/news-events/multiple-myeloma-news/landmark-ecog-acrin-endurance-study-co-authored-international-myeloma-foundation-leaders-provides
* * *
Landmark ECOG-ACRIN ENDURANCE Study Co-Authored by International Myeloma Foundation Leaders Provides Evidence for Optimal Duration of Maintenance Therapy
STUDIO CITY, CA -- Study results from the randomized, prospective phase III ENDURANCE (E1A11) trial, designed and conducted by the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (ECOG-ACRIN), were published today in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The study was co-authored by several members of the International Myeloma ... Show Full Article NORTH HOLLYWOOD, California, July 16 (TNSjou) -- The International Myeloma Foundation issued the following news on July 14, 2026: * * * Landmark ECOG-ACRIN ENDURANCE Study Co-Authored by International Myeloma Foundation Leaders Provides Evidence for Optimal Duration of Maintenance Therapy STUDIO CITY, CA -- Study results from the randomized, prospective phase III ENDURANCE (E1A11) trial, designed and conducted by the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (ECOG-ACRIN), were published today in the New England Journal of Medicine. The study was co-authored by several members of the International MyelomaFoundation (IMF) leadership who also serve on the ECOG-ACRIN Myeloma Committee, which led the study.
These investigators include Dr. S. Vincent Rajkumar, Chairperson of the IMF Board of Directors (Mayo Clinic -- Rochester, MN); Dr. Shaji Kumar, Member of the IMF Scientific Advisory Board (Mayo Clinic -- Rochester, MN); and Dr. Sagar Lonial, Vice Chairperson of the IMF Board of Directors (Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University -- Atlanta, GA).
The phase III ENDURANCE trial results showed that two years of maintenance therapy with lenalidomide provides the same long-term survival benefit as indefinite treatment until progression for patients with standard-risk multiple myeloma.
The trial enrolled 516 patients who have completed initial treatment but were not candidates for upfront stem cell transplantation. Participants were randomly assigned to receive lenalidomide either until progression, which is the current standard of care (indefinite duration group) or for a limited duration of 2 years. After nearly seven years of follow-up, overall survival rates were virtually identical: 68.6 percent in the indefinite treatment group versus 69.0 percent in the two-year limited duration group.
Compared to the limited duration group, indefinite duration of therapy was associated with higher rates of side effects, including fatigue, anemia, and diarrhea. The study also found a slightly higher incidence of second primary cancers over five years among patients who took the drug until progression.
"For years, patients and clinicians have been hesitant to stop lenalidomide maintenance because we didn't know how long was required for optimal benefit," said lead author Dr. Shaji Kumar, co-chair of the ECOG-ACRIN Myeloma Committee. "Our trial results show that two years is sufficient and that continuing the drug longer adds toxicity without extending life."
Dr. S. Vincent Rajkumar, senior author and chair of the ECOG-ACRIN Myeloma Committee, said: "Our findings suggest that a fixed-duration approach can become the new standard of care, at least for standard-risk patients, allowing us to pause treatment, monitor patients closely, with the option of potentially re-introducing lenalidomide or other new active treatments if the disease returns."
According to co-author Dr. Sagar Lonial, "this is the first randomized trial to show that limited duration lenalidomide maintenance does not sacrifice overall survival in the context of no transplant and triplet induction."
"The impact of these study results on patients cannot be overstated from a quality-of-life perspective," said Heather Cooper Ortner, IMF President and CEO. "For patients with standard-risk myeloma, knowing with confidence that they can safely discontinue treatment without compromising overall survival represents a remarkable advancement in personalized care. It means fewer side effects, less time on therapy, and greater freedom to focus on living their lives--not just managing their disease. This is exactly the kind of research that gives patients hope while bringing us closer to our ultimate goal: helping every patient live longer, better lives until we achieve a cure."
Multiple myeloma, a cancer of plasma cells, has seen dramatic advances in treatment over the past two decades. However, prolonged therapy has raised concerns about cumulative side effects and financial burden. This trial addresses a critical gap by proving that shorter, fixed-duration maintenance may not compromise efficacy. The results are particularly relevant for patients without high-risk cytogenetic risk factors and those who did not undergo stem cell transplantation, representing a large portion of the myeloma population.
* * *
The study was funded by the US National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute. Additional support was provided by Amgen. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01863550.
* * *
ABOUT MULTIPLE MYELOMA
Multiple myeloma is a cancer of the bone marrow plasma cells -- white blood cells that make antibodies. A cancerous or malignant plasma cell is called a myeloma cell. Myeloma is called "multiple" because there are frequently multiple patches or areas in bone where it grows. It often involves damage to bone and kidneys. Multiple myeloma is still incurable, but great progress has been made in terms of survival over the last two decades. The disease is twice as common and is diagnosed at a younger age in African Americans than white Americans. The most common presenting symptoms include fatigue and bone pain.
* * *
ABOUT THE INTERNATIONAL MYELOMA FOUNDATION
Founded in 1990, the International Myeloma Foundation (IMF) is the world's leading organization dedicated to multiple myeloma. The IMF is steadfast in its mission: accelerating the prevention and cure of myeloma and improving the quality of life for patients and families.
The IMF serves people impacted by myeloma at every stage of the disease by combining world-class research, trusted education, global advocacy, and direct support. A cornerstone of this work is the International Myeloma Working Group(R) (IMWG)--a network of more than 380 internationally renowned researchers and clinicians who establish the guidelines that shape how myeloma is diagnosed, treated, and managed across the globe.
Through its global network of support groups, educational programs, its 24/7 generative-AI myeloma assistant Myelo(R), its InfoLine, and its advocacy for greater healthcare access, the IMF helps people living with myeloma and their care partners navigate diagnosis, treatment, and survivorship. At the same time, the IMF ensures scientific advances translate into better care and outcomes.
Learn more at www.myeloma.org or contact the IMF InfoLine at (800) 452-CURE (2873) (U.S. & Canada), +1 (818) 487-7455 (worldwide), or infoline@myeloma.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.myeloma.org/news-events/multiple-myeloma-news/landmark-ecog-acrin-endurance-study-co-authored-international-myeloma-foundation-leaders-provides
Good and Bad News for Clean Water in Pennsylvania as State Budget Passes
ANNAPOLIS, Maryland, July 16 -- The Chesapeake Bay Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
Good and Bad News for Clean Water in Pennsylvania as State Budget Passes
*
Guidelines Around Food Processing Residuals is a Policy Win, But Requirements for Data Centers Fall Short
HARRISBURG-Pennsylvania legislators passed a state budget over the weekend that proposed stronger requirements for applying noxious food waste to farm fields and required data centers to report water and energy use.
Governor Josh Shapiro signed the Commonwealth's $50.8 billion General Fund budget for fiscal ... Show Full Article ANNAPOLIS, Maryland, July 16 -- The Chesapeake Bay Foundation posted the following news release: * * * Good and Bad News for Clean Water in Pennsylvania as State Budget Passes * Guidelines Around Food Processing Residuals is a Policy Win, But Requirements for Data Centers Fall Short HARRISBURG-Pennsylvania legislators passed a state budget over the weekend that proposed stronger requirements for applying noxious food waste to farm fields and required data centers to report water and energy use. Governor Josh Shapiro signed the Commonwealth's $50.8 billion General Fund budget for fiscalyear 2026-2027 on Sunday.
Included in the budget were proposed new guidelines for food processing waste management, as well as required environmental reporting for data centers.
There is growing controversy in Pennsylvania around applying food waste as fertilizer to farm fields. This mixture of blood, meat scraps, fat, and other food waste is commonly called Food Processing Residuals (FPRs). When not properly handled, it leads to pollution and an overpowering stench. This substance is currently not regulated and does not require certain setbacks from streams and timely applications the way that traditional fertilizer does.
The budget included guidance for regulators to establish best management practices for the storage, processing and land application of food waste on agricultural lands, a set of guidelines that was last updated in 2001.
It also requires the State Conservation Commission, in collaboration with the Department of Agriculture and Department of Environmental Protection to create regulations to reduce harm from improper storage and use of this waste, which can create increased nutrient pollution to our local waters and harmful odors.
Data centers are already affecting Pennsylvanians by using significant quantities of public water resources, increasing electricity bills, and filling communities with noise and harmful air pollution from diesel generators.
The budget included a provision that requires data centers to report their energy and water use annually. Reports are to be filed annually to the Department of Environmental Protection and made public.
There were four other bills and provisions that the Chesapeake Bay Foundation supports regarding various guardrails on data centers that have passed the House. None of these were passed in the budget, and they still await action on the Senate floor, as CBF advocates to get them passed.
CBF Pennsylvania Executive Director Julia Krall issued the following statement :
"Guidance and regulations around applying noxious food waste to farm fields is long overdue.
"This provision helps farmers know what they are applying on their lands and adds guardrails to protect the soil, water, and health of the local communities.
"Required reporting on data centers is a step in the right direction, but we must move further. Pennsylvania needs more guardrails to ensure data centers are not an environmental and community threat. Creating reasonable rules for the responsible use of water and energy must be a priority for the General Assembly.
"Tracking and limiting water use for data centers is critical to ensuring the water in our state stays clean and available to the communities that need it. Without monitoring, risks go undetected, and our leaders cannot make informed policy decisions.
"We look forward to working with the General Assembly in the future to ensure that everyone in Pennsylvania can enjoy clean water and thriving communities, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania stays on track to meet our commitments in the revised Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement."
***
Original text here: https://www.cbf.org/news/good-and-bad-news-for-clean-water-in-pennsylvania-as-state-budget-passes/
* * *
Good and Bad News for Clean Water in Pennsylvania as State Budget Passes
*
Guidelines Around Food Processing Residuals is a Policy Win, But Requirements for Data Centers Fall Short
HARRISBURG-Pennsylvania legislators passed a state budget over the weekend that proposed stronger requirements for applying noxious food waste to farm fields and required data centers to report water and energy use.
Governor Josh Shapiro signed the Commonwealth's $50.8 billion General Fund budget for fiscal ... Show Full Article ANNAPOLIS, Maryland, July 16 -- The Chesapeake Bay Foundation posted the following news release: * * * Good and Bad News for Clean Water in Pennsylvania as State Budget Passes * Guidelines Around Food Processing Residuals is a Policy Win, But Requirements for Data Centers Fall Short HARRISBURG-Pennsylvania legislators passed a state budget over the weekend that proposed stronger requirements for applying noxious food waste to farm fields and required data centers to report water and energy use. Governor Josh Shapiro signed the Commonwealth's $50.8 billion General Fund budget for fiscalyear 2026-2027 on Sunday.
Included in the budget were proposed new guidelines for food processing waste management, as well as required environmental reporting for data centers.
There is growing controversy in Pennsylvania around applying food waste as fertilizer to farm fields. This mixture of blood, meat scraps, fat, and other food waste is commonly called Food Processing Residuals (FPRs). When not properly handled, it leads to pollution and an overpowering stench. This substance is currently not regulated and does not require certain setbacks from streams and timely applications the way that traditional fertilizer does.
The budget included guidance for regulators to establish best management practices for the storage, processing and land application of food waste on agricultural lands, a set of guidelines that was last updated in 2001.
It also requires the State Conservation Commission, in collaboration with the Department of Agriculture and Department of Environmental Protection to create regulations to reduce harm from improper storage and use of this waste, which can create increased nutrient pollution to our local waters and harmful odors.
Data centers are already affecting Pennsylvanians by using significant quantities of public water resources, increasing electricity bills, and filling communities with noise and harmful air pollution from diesel generators.
The budget included a provision that requires data centers to report their energy and water use annually. Reports are to be filed annually to the Department of Environmental Protection and made public.
There were four other bills and provisions that the Chesapeake Bay Foundation supports regarding various guardrails on data centers that have passed the House. None of these were passed in the budget, and they still await action on the Senate floor, as CBF advocates to get them passed.
CBF Pennsylvania Executive Director Julia Krall issued the following statement :
"Guidance and regulations around applying noxious food waste to farm fields is long overdue.
"This provision helps farmers know what they are applying on their lands and adds guardrails to protect the soil, water, and health of the local communities.
"Required reporting on data centers is a step in the right direction, but we must move further. Pennsylvania needs more guardrails to ensure data centers are not an environmental and community threat. Creating reasonable rules for the responsible use of water and energy must be a priority for the General Assembly.
"Tracking and limiting water use for data centers is critical to ensuring the water in our state stays clean and available to the communities that need it. Without monitoring, risks go undetected, and our leaders cannot make informed policy decisions.
"We look forward to working with the General Assembly in the future to ensure that everyone in Pennsylvania can enjoy clean water and thriving communities, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania stays on track to meet our commitments in the revised Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement."
***
Original text here: https://www.cbf.org/news/good-and-bad-news-for-clean-water-in-pennsylvania-as-state-budget-passes/
Foundation for Economic Education Posts Commentary on Why Life Clusters Into Outliers Instead of Averages
DETROIT, Michigan, July 16 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary by Harshit Singh, student of management studies at Shaheed Sukhdev College of Business Studies, University of Delhi:
* * *
The Geometry of Advantage
Applying the Pareto Principle.
-
Anyone who has spent time in a group project recognizes an uncomfortable pattern. A small number of people end up carrying most of the work, while the rest contribute unevenly at best. Look at almost any workplace, and the same pattern emerges: a handful of employees are responsible for a surprisingly large share ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, July 16 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary by Harshit Singh, student of management studies at Shaheed Sukhdev College of Business Studies, University of Delhi: * * * The Geometry of Advantage Applying the Pareto Principle. - Anyone who has spent time in a group project recognizes an uncomfortable pattern. A small number of people end up carrying most of the work, while the rest contribute unevenly at best. Look at almost any workplace, and the same pattern emerges: a handful of employees are responsible for a surprisingly large shareof what actually gets done. Walk through any city, and a few restaurants stay full while most sit half-empty. On streaming platforms, a small number of songs absorb most of the listening. Seen once, it looks like a coincidence. Seen everywhere, it starts to look like a law.
That's because it is one. Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto first documented it in the 19th century while studying land ownership in Italy, and found that roughly 20% of landowners held about 80% of the land. He checked the rest of Europe and found the same lopsided pattern everywhere. It now carries his name: the Pareto Principle, or the 80/20 rule, the observation that a small share of any system tends to produce most of its outcomes.
This is a different shape from the bell curve most of us were taught to expect. In a normal distribution, most values cluster near the average, with few extremes, human height being the classic case. A Pareto distribution has no such ceiling. If 99 people in a town earn $100 a day and one person earning $10,000 moves in, the average nearly doubles, even though nobody else's life has changed. This kind of outlier is governed by what statisticians call a power law: as values grow larger, they become rarer, but not rare enough to rule out extremes. Of the millions of people who have ever acted in a film, a small number attract nearly all the audience attention any actor ever receives.
The pattern is also self-similar. A handful of cities dominate any country's population, a larger number are mid-sized, and a great many are small. Zoom into just the largest cities, and the same ratio reappears. Zoom into the mid-sized ones, and it appears again. The scale changes. The structure does not. Nature runs on the same logic: the sun holds 99.8% of the mass in our solar system, and a small number of major earthquakes release most of the energy that all earthquakes combined produce in a given year.
Part of the explanation is social: people are more likely to follow a social media account, cite a paper, or buy a book that already has an audience, regardless of underlying quality. Part of it is structural: network effects mean that a platform becomes exponentially more valuable as more people join it, which is why leaving for a smaller, better competitor rarely happens. And part of it is what sociologists call the Matthew Effect, after a biblical line about those who already have much being given more. A researcher with early recognition gets cited more, which brings more funding, compounding a small edge into a lasting one.
Compounding is the common thread, and humans are bad at intuiting it, since our minds evolved for linear systems: walk twice as far, cover twice the distance. Compounding breaks that pattern: $100,000 growing at 7% a year becomes roughly $196,000 after 10 years, $387,000 after 20, and $761,000 after 30, a result most people find surprising, since humans rarely lived inside compounding systems until industrialization began.
Perhaps the clearest illustration of the Pareto Principle at work is what might be called the square root rule of productivity: in any sufficiently large organization, roughly the square root of the total workforce produces about half of its total output. A company of 10 employees has about 3 carrying half the load. A company of 10,000 has around 100, just 1% of the workforce, producing half of everything the company makes.
This is not because the other 99% are lazy. It reflects ordinary variation in skill, reinforced by how work gets assigned: managers hand important tasks to people who have already proven that they can deliver, which gives them more chances to prove it again. It also explains why some companies collapse quickly after a leadership change. Drive out the most capable people, and since they disproportionately produce half of everything, output does not fall gradually. It falls by half. The same rule reapplies to whoever remains, and the spiral continues.
The same logic scales up to entire economies, and this is where the Pareto Principle stops being a curiosity and starts being uncomfortable. In the United States, the wealthiest 1% held about 23% of total wealth in 1970 and hold roughly 31-32% today. Globally, the richest 1% control an estimated 45-46% of all wealth, while the poorest half of humanity holds barely 1-2%.
The instinct is to treat this as a problem to be capped. But the same incentive that produces runaway wealth at the top is what drives most innovation everywhere else. A company that can no longer profit past a certain size has little reason to keep improving past that size. Profit motive is why better medicine gets developed, why better products get built, and why farms produce more food per acre than they did a generation ago. Anyone doubting how much a functioning profit motive matters need only compare the experience of a private business to a queue at a government office where no one's compensation depends on how quickly the line moves.
Attempts to flatten this distribution artificially have a poor track record. At best, they trade away growth. At worst, they are catastrophic, and for exactly the reason the square root rule predicts: when a state forcibly removes its most productive people, output does not dip; it collapses. Soviet dekulakization in the 1930s targeted the most successful farmers in the name of equality, and the resulting collapse in agricultural output contributed to a famine that killed millions, a brutal real-world demonstration of what happens when you remove the people responsible for half your output and expect the other half to compensate.
None of this means that rising inequality is costless. But the same period that produced today's wealth concentration also produced the fastest reduction in human deprivation on record: roughly 100,000 people a day lifted out of extreme poverty for 30 years running, infant mortality down from around 16% a century ago to under 3% today. Helping people dealt a genuinely bad hand is worth doing, but that help is funded by wealth generated inside this same lopsided system, and redistribution that kills the incentive to create it tends to leave everyone, including the people it was meant to help, worse off.
Once you notice the Pareto Principle, it is difficult to stop seeing it: in who does the work, in who gets the credit, in which companies survive a change in leadership, and in which nations manage to lift their people out of poverty and which do not. It is not a flaw in how the world works. It is closer to a description of how the world has always worked, whether we have found it fair or not.
* * *
Harshit Singh is a final-year student of Management Studies (Honors with Research) at Shaheed Sukhdev College of Business Studies, University of Delhi, with research interests in behavioral economics and decision-making.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/the-geometry-of-advantage/
* * *
The Geometry of Advantage
Applying the Pareto Principle.
-
Anyone who has spent time in a group project recognizes an uncomfortable pattern. A small number of people end up carrying most of the work, while the rest contribute unevenly at best. Look at almost any workplace, and the same pattern emerges: a handful of employees are responsible for a surprisingly large share ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, July 16 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary by Harshit Singh, student of management studies at Shaheed Sukhdev College of Business Studies, University of Delhi: * * * The Geometry of Advantage Applying the Pareto Principle. - Anyone who has spent time in a group project recognizes an uncomfortable pattern. A small number of people end up carrying most of the work, while the rest contribute unevenly at best. Look at almost any workplace, and the same pattern emerges: a handful of employees are responsible for a surprisingly large shareof what actually gets done. Walk through any city, and a few restaurants stay full while most sit half-empty. On streaming platforms, a small number of songs absorb most of the listening. Seen once, it looks like a coincidence. Seen everywhere, it starts to look like a law.
That's because it is one. Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto first documented it in the 19th century while studying land ownership in Italy, and found that roughly 20% of landowners held about 80% of the land. He checked the rest of Europe and found the same lopsided pattern everywhere. It now carries his name: the Pareto Principle, or the 80/20 rule, the observation that a small share of any system tends to produce most of its outcomes.
This is a different shape from the bell curve most of us were taught to expect. In a normal distribution, most values cluster near the average, with few extremes, human height being the classic case. A Pareto distribution has no such ceiling. If 99 people in a town earn $100 a day and one person earning $10,000 moves in, the average nearly doubles, even though nobody else's life has changed. This kind of outlier is governed by what statisticians call a power law: as values grow larger, they become rarer, but not rare enough to rule out extremes. Of the millions of people who have ever acted in a film, a small number attract nearly all the audience attention any actor ever receives.
The pattern is also self-similar. A handful of cities dominate any country's population, a larger number are mid-sized, and a great many are small. Zoom into just the largest cities, and the same ratio reappears. Zoom into the mid-sized ones, and it appears again. The scale changes. The structure does not. Nature runs on the same logic: the sun holds 99.8% of the mass in our solar system, and a small number of major earthquakes release most of the energy that all earthquakes combined produce in a given year.
Part of the explanation is social: people are more likely to follow a social media account, cite a paper, or buy a book that already has an audience, regardless of underlying quality. Part of it is structural: network effects mean that a platform becomes exponentially more valuable as more people join it, which is why leaving for a smaller, better competitor rarely happens. And part of it is what sociologists call the Matthew Effect, after a biblical line about those who already have much being given more. A researcher with early recognition gets cited more, which brings more funding, compounding a small edge into a lasting one.
Compounding is the common thread, and humans are bad at intuiting it, since our minds evolved for linear systems: walk twice as far, cover twice the distance. Compounding breaks that pattern: $100,000 growing at 7% a year becomes roughly $196,000 after 10 years, $387,000 after 20, and $761,000 after 30, a result most people find surprising, since humans rarely lived inside compounding systems until industrialization began.
Perhaps the clearest illustration of the Pareto Principle at work is what might be called the square root rule of productivity: in any sufficiently large organization, roughly the square root of the total workforce produces about half of its total output. A company of 10 employees has about 3 carrying half the load. A company of 10,000 has around 100, just 1% of the workforce, producing half of everything the company makes.
This is not because the other 99% are lazy. It reflects ordinary variation in skill, reinforced by how work gets assigned: managers hand important tasks to people who have already proven that they can deliver, which gives them more chances to prove it again. It also explains why some companies collapse quickly after a leadership change. Drive out the most capable people, and since they disproportionately produce half of everything, output does not fall gradually. It falls by half. The same rule reapplies to whoever remains, and the spiral continues.
The same logic scales up to entire economies, and this is where the Pareto Principle stops being a curiosity and starts being uncomfortable. In the United States, the wealthiest 1% held about 23% of total wealth in 1970 and hold roughly 31-32% today. Globally, the richest 1% control an estimated 45-46% of all wealth, while the poorest half of humanity holds barely 1-2%.
The instinct is to treat this as a problem to be capped. But the same incentive that produces runaway wealth at the top is what drives most innovation everywhere else. A company that can no longer profit past a certain size has little reason to keep improving past that size. Profit motive is why better medicine gets developed, why better products get built, and why farms produce more food per acre than they did a generation ago. Anyone doubting how much a functioning profit motive matters need only compare the experience of a private business to a queue at a government office where no one's compensation depends on how quickly the line moves.
Attempts to flatten this distribution artificially have a poor track record. At best, they trade away growth. At worst, they are catastrophic, and for exactly the reason the square root rule predicts: when a state forcibly removes its most productive people, output does not dip; it collapses. Soviet dekulakization in the 1930s targeted the most successful farmers in the name of equality, and the resulting collapse in agricultural output contributed to a famine that killed millions, a brutal real-world demonstration of what happens when you remove the people responsible for half your output and expect the other half to compensate.
None of this means that rising inequality is costless. But the same period that produced today's wealth concentration also produced the fastest reduction in human deprivation on record: roughly 100,000 people a day lifted out of extreme poverty for 30 years running, infant mortality down from around 16% a century ago to under 3% today. Helping people dealt a genuinely bad hand is worth doing, but that help is funded by wealth generated inside this same lopsided system, and redistribution that kills the incentive to create it tends to leave everyone, including the people it was meant to help, worse off.
Once you notice the Pareto Principle, it is difficult to stop seeing it: in who does the work, in who gets the credit, in which companies survive a change in leadership, and in which nations manage to lift their people out of poverty and which do not. It is not a flaw in how the world works. It is closer to a description of how the world has always worked, whether we have found it fair or not.
* * *
Harshit Singh is a final-year student of Management Studies (Honors with Research) at Shaheed Sukhdev College of Business Studies, University of Delhi, with research interests in behavioral economics and decision-making.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/the-geometry-of-advantage/
FFRF Stops Coach From Assigning Christian Journaling, Punishing Students Who Refused
MADISON, Wisconsin, July 16 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
FFRF stops coach from assigning Christian journaling, punishing students who refused
The Freedom From Religion Foundation has persuaded a California school district to end a practice in which a high school basketball coach required players to complete Christian journal assignments or face extra conditioning during practice.
A concerned parent reported that the Enterprise High School basketball coach in the Shasta Union High School District was forcing students to complete daily affirmations ... Show Full Article MADISON, Wisconsin, July 16 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release: * * * FFRF stops coach from assigning Christian journaling, punishing students who refused The Freedom From Religion Foundation has persuaded a California school district to end a practice in which a high school basketball coach required players to complete Christian journal assignments or face extra conditioning during practice. A concerned parent reported that the Enterprise High School basketball coach in the Shasta Union High School District was forcing students to complete daily affirmationsand prayers in faith-based journals during the 2026 basketball season. The journals featured a Latin cross on the cover and were titled "The Empowered Christian Athlete Journal."
According to the parent, the coach would punish student-athletes by forcing them to run additional laps during practice if they did not complete their Christian journal assignments. In numerous text messages, the coach reminded students that they must complete the religious assignments or else face punishment, such as "running double." The parent further explained that they were "very angered and disappointed ... that a Christian based journal would be pushed at a public school" and that their "child would be disciplined for not participating" in the religious journal activities. They explained that they are not a religious family, and pointed out that the faith-based journal assignments crossed the constitutional line.
"When coaches direct students to complete Christian journal assignments or else face punishment at practice, student-athletes will no doubt feel that completing the religious journaling is essential to avoiding punishment, pleasing their coach, and being viewed as a team player," FFRF Staff Attorney Sammi Lawrence wrote to the district.
FFRF noted to the district that public school coaches may not use their authority to coerce students into participating in religious activities or completing faith-based assignments. The coach clearly violated the First Amendment rights of student-athletes. Additionally, religious team assignments needlessly marginalize students, such as the parent's child, who are nonreligious or members of minority faiths. Forty-two percent of adult Californians are non-Christians, and 33 percent are nonreligious. Statistically, nearly half of Americans born after 1996 are nonreligious.
Following FFRF's complaint, the district investigated the allegations.
"Upon completion of the investigation, we informed the coach that the use of the journal in this context should not continue moving forward," Associate Superintendent of Human Resources Jason Rubin wrote. "In addition, the district will provide training and guidance to staff to ensure a clear understanding of expectations and to help prevent similar situations from occurring in the future."
FFRF welcomes the district's prompt corrective action and will continue working to ensure that public school students are free from religious coercion.
"This is one of the more egregious misuses of authority we have recently seen by a public school coach," says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. "Coaches wield enormous influence over young athletes, and that authority cannot be used to pressure students into participating in religious exercises. Public school athletics should build teamwork and character, not serve as a vehicle for religious indoctrination."
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With more than 41,000 members, including over 5,000 members and two chapters in California, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/ffrf-stops-coach-from-assigning-christian-journaling-punishing-students-who-refused/
[Category: Religion]
* * *
FFRF stops coach from assigning Christian journaling, punishing students who refused
The Freedom From Religion Foundation has persuaded a California school district to end a practice in which a high school basketball coach required players to complete Christian journal assignments or face extra conditioning during practice.
A concerned parent reported that the Enterprise High School basketball coach in the Shasta Union High School District was forcing students to complete daily affirmations ... Show Full Article MADISON, Wisconsin, July 16 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release: * * * FFRF stops coach from assigning Christian journaling, punishing students who refused The Freedom From Religion Foundation has persuaded a California school district to end a practice in which a high school basketball coach required players to complete Christian journal assignments or face extra conditioning during practice. A concerned parent reported that the Enterprise High School basketball coach in the Shasta Union High School District was forcing students to complete daily affirmationsand prayers in faith-based journals during the 2026 basketball season. The journals featured a Latin cross on the cover and were titled "The Empowered Christian Athlete Journal."
According to the parent, the coach would punish student-athletes by forcing them to run additional laps during practice if they did not complete their Christian journal assignments. In numerous text messages, the coach reminded students that they must complete the religious assignments or else face punishment, such as "running double." The parent further explained that they were "very angered and disappointed ... that a Christian based journal would be pushed at a public school" and that their "child would be disciplined for not participating" in the religious journal activities. They explained that they are not a religious family, and pointed out that the faith-based journal assignments crossed the constitutional line.
"When coaches direct students to complete Christian journal assignments or else face punishment at practice, student-athletes will no doubt feel that completing the religious journaling is essential to avoiding punishment, pleasing their coach, and being viewed as a team player," FFRF Staff Attorney Sammi Lawrence wrote to the district.
FFRF noted to the district that public school coaches may not use their authority to coerce students into participating in religious activities or completing faith-based assignments. The coach clearly violated the First Amendment rights of student-athletes. Additionally, religious team assignments needlessly marginalize students, such as the parent's child, who are nonreligious or members of minority faiths. Forty-two percent of adult Californians are non-Christians, and 33 percent are nonreligious. Statistically, nearly half of Americans born after 1996 are nonreligious.
Following FFRF's complaint, the district investigated the allegations.
"Upon completion of the investigation, we informed the coach that the use of the journal in this context should not continue moving forward," Associate Superintendent of Human Resources Jason Rubin wrote. "In addition, the district will provide training and guidance to staff to ensure a clear understanding of expectations and to help prevent similar situations from occurring in the future."
FFRF welcomes the district's prompt corrective action and will continue working to ensure that public school students are free from religious coercion.
"This is one of the more egregious misuses of authority we have recently seen by a public school coach," says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. "Coaches wield enormous influence over young athletes, and that authority cannot be used to pressure students into participating in religious exercises. Public school athletics should build teamwork and character, not serve as a vehicle for religious indoctrination."
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With more than 41,000 members, including over 5,000 members and two chapters in California, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/ffrf-stops-coach-from-assigning-christian-journaling-punishing-students-who-refused/
[Category: Religion]
FFRF Calls First Liberty's "Religious Liberty" Index a Christian Nationalism Scorecard
MADISON, Wisconsin, July 16 (TNSrep) -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
FFRF calls First Liberty's "Religious Liberty" index a Christian nationalism scorecard
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is criticizing First Liberty Institute's newly released Religious Liberty in the States 2026 report (https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/), arguing that it rewards states for expanding religious exemptions rather than protecting genuine religious freedom.
The report rewards states for enacting laws that allow religious individuals and organizations ... Show Full Article MADISON, Wisconsin, July 16 (TNSrep) -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release: * * * FFRF calls First Liberty's "Religious Liberty" index a Christian nationalism scorecard The Freedom From Religion Foundation is criticizing First Liberty Institute's newly released Religious Liberty in the States 2026 report (https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/), arguing that it rewards states for expanding religious exemptions rather than protecting genuine religious freedom. The report rewards states for enacting laws that allow religious individuals and organizationsto opt out of generally applicable laws, including nondiscrimination protections, health care obligations and civil rights requirements.
"Americans already enjoy the constitutional right to believe, worship or reject religion as they choose," says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. "First Liberty's index isn't about measuring or promoting true religious freedom. It's about measuring assaults on the constitutional separation between state and church."
The report, released at an event hosted by Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, crowned Arkansas the nation's top state for "religious liberty" after the state enacted legislation allowing businesses, religious organizations and others to refuse participation in weddings based on religious objections.
The report openly encourages lawmakers to use its rankings as a blueprint for passing additional religious exemption laws and invites legislators to work with First Liberty attorneys to enact them.
Sanders celebrated Arkansas' top ranking by erroneously declaring, "Our rights come from God, not government."
FFRF argues that the statement perfectly captures the ideological problem with this report, because constitutional rights are secured by the Constitution, which is godless, and enforced by civil, not religious courts.
"Americans enjoy freedom of religion precisely because our government does not claim to derive its authority from a deity," Gaylor adds.
Among the policies that improve First Liberty's ranking of states are laws that allow:
* Businesses to refuse participation in same-sex weddings.
* Government officials to decline participation in weddings because of religious objections.
* Healthcare providers to refuse to provide abortions, sterilizations, contraception, genetic counseling and other medical services.
* Religious foster-care agencies to discriminate while remaining eligible for funding by government programs.
* Expanded Religious Freedom Restoration Acts.
* Religious exemptions from labor union participation.
* Additional protections allowing religious entities to avoid compliance with generally applicable laws.
"These are not measures of religious freedom," Gaylor notes. "They are measures of religious privilege. The report consistently treats exemptions from following civil rights laws for religious reasons as if they are synonymous with liberty."
The report praises Arkansas' HB 1615, which allows government officials to refuse to participate in weddings for religious reasons, as model legislation for other states to copy. While public employees have limited religious accommodation rights, they cannot constitutionally deny members of the public equal access to government services.
The report celebrates Tennessee's sweeping medical conscience law as one of the nation's strongest religious liberty protections and encourages its adoption elsewhere. FFRF's legislative arm, the FFRF Action Fund, opposed the legislation, warning that it "allows health care providers and insurance companies to refuse treatment based on religious objections -- and even worse, patients wouldn't be informed that these treatments aren't available to them." The Action Fund further noted that the bill "blatantly enables religious-based discrimination, bringing real harm to reproductive freedom and LGBTQ+ rights in Tennessee."
While First Liberty portrays states such as Arkansas and Tennessee as national leaders, its report penalizes such states as New York, California and Connecticut, not because residents lack the freedom to practice their faith but largely because they have chosen not to enact expansive religious exemption statutes.
FFRF notes that the report arrives amid an increasingly coordinated Christian nationalist effort to reshape state law by granting religion, particularly conservative Christian adherents, preferential treatment.
Sanders, who crows about her state's ranking in this report, has embraced Christian nationalist rhetoric and repeatedly rejected Establishment Clause concerns. These include dismissing FFRF's objection to her proclamation closing state offices for Christmas with an explicitly theological account of the Christian story of Jesus' birth, divinity, crucifixion, resurrection and anticipated return "in glory," while instructing state employees to spend the holiday "giving thanks for Christ's birth."
"True religious liberty protects every American's freedom of conscience," Gaylor says. "It does not guarantee a religious right to discriminate, ignore civil rights laws or receive special treatment from the government. That's the distinction First Liberty's report intentionally obscures."
FFRF will continue monitoring and opposing legislation promoted by First Liberty and similar organizations as they seek to replicate these discriminatory religious exemption laws across the country.
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With about 41,000 members, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/ffrf-calls-first-libertys-religious-liberty-index-a-christian-nationalism-scorecard/
[Category: Religion]
* * *
FFRF calls First Liberty's "Religious Liberty" index a Christian nationalism scorecard
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is criticizing First Liberty Institute's newly released Religious Liberty in the States 2026 report (https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/), arguing that it rewards states for expanding religious exemptions rather than protecting genuine religious freedom.
The report rewards states for enacting laws that allow religious individuals and organizations ... Show Full Article MADISON, Wisconsin, July 16 (TNSrep) -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release: * * * FFRF calls First Liberty's "Religious Liberty" index a Christian nationalism scorecard The Freedom From Religion Foundation is criticizing First Liberty Institute's newly released Religious Liberty in the States 2026 report (https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/), arguing that it rewards states for expanding religious exemptions rather than protecting genuine religious freedom. The report rewards states for enacting laws that allow religious individuals and organizationsto opt out of generally applicable laws, including nondiscrimination protections, health care obligations and civil rights requirements.
"Americans already enjoy the constitutional right to believe, worship or reject religion as they choose," says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. "First Liberty's index isn't about measuring or promoting true religious freedom. It's about measuring assaults on the constitutional separation between state and church."
The report, released at an event hosted by Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, crowned Arkansas the nation's top state for "religious liberty" after the state enacted legislation allowing businesses, religious organizations and others to refuse participation in weddings based on religious objections.
The report openly encourages lawmakers to use its rankings as a blueprint for passing additional religious exemption laws and invites legislators to work with First Liberty attorneys to enact them.
Sanders celebrated Arkansas' top ranking by erroneously declaring, "Our rights come from God, not government."
FFRF argues that the statement perfectly captures the ideological problem with this report, because constitutional rights are secured by the Constitution, which is godless, and enforced by civil, not religious courts.
"Americans enjoy freedom of religion precisely because our government does not claim to derive its authority from a deity," Gaylor adds.
Among the policies that improve First Liberty's ranking of states are laws that allow:
* Businesses to refuse participation in same-sex weddings.
* Government officials to decline participation in weddings because of religious objections.
* Healthcare providers to refuse to provide abortions, sterilizations, contraception, genetic counseling and other medical services.
* Religious foster-care agencies to discriminate while remaining eligible for funding by government programs.
* Expanded Religious Freedom Restoration Acts.
* Religious exemptions from labor union participation.
* Additional protections allowing religious entities to avoid compliance with generally applicable laws.
"These are not measures of religious freedom," Gaylor notes. "They are measures of religious privilege. The report consistently treats exemptions from following civil rights laws for religious reasons as if they are synonymous with liberty."
The report praises Arkansas' HB 1615, which allows government officials to refuse to participate in weddings for religious reasons, as model legislation for other states to copy. While public employees have limited religious accommodation rights, they cannot constitutionally deny members of the public equal access to government services.
The report celebrates Tennessee's sweeping medical conscience law as one of the nation's strongest religious liberty protections and encourages its adoption elsewhere. FFRF's legislative arm, the FFRF Action Fund, opposed the legislation, warning that it "allows health care providers and insurance companies to refuse treatment based on religious objections -- and even worse, patients wouldn't be informed that these treatments aren't available to them." The Action Fund further noted that the bill "blatantly enables religious-based discrimination, bringing real harm to reproductive freedom and LGBTQ+ rights in Tennessee."
While First Liberty portrays states such as Arkansas and Tennessee as national leaders, its report penalizes such states as New York, California and Connecticut, not because residents lack the freedom to practice their faith but largely because they have chosen not to enact expansive religious exemption statutes.
FFRF notes that the report arrives amid an increasingly coordinated Christian nationalist effort to reshape state law by granting religion, particularly conservative Christian adherents, preferential treatment.
Sanders, who crows about her state's ranking in this report, has embraced Christian nationalist rhetoric and repeatedly rejected Establishment Clause concerns. These include dismissing FFRF's objection to her proclamation closing state offices for Christmas with an explicitly theological account of the Christian story of Jesus' birth, divinity, crucifixion, resurrection and anticipated return "in glory," while instructing state employees to spend the holiday "giving thanks for Christ's birth."
"True religious liberty protects every American's freedom of conscience," Gaylor says. "It does not guarantee a religious right to discriminate, ignore civil rights laws or receive special treatment from the government. That's the distinction First Liberty's report intentionally obscures."
FFRF will continue monitoring and opposing legislation promoted by First Liberty and similar organizations as they seek to replicate these discriminatory religious exemption laws across the country.
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With about 41,000 members, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/ffrf-calls-first-libertys-religious-liberty-index-a-christian-nationalism-scorecard/
[Category: Religion]