Podcasts about negotiated

Cattle futures meandered Tuesday, awaiting weekly cash direction. Toward the close, Live Cattle futures were an average of 24¢ lower, except for an average of 2¢ higher in the back two contracts. Feeder Cattle futures were narrowly mixed, from an average of 29¢ lower in five contracts to an average of 19¢ higher. Negotiated [...]

Cattle futures were higher Wednesday, helped by early cash fed cattle bids on the upper end of last week's range. Toward the close, Live Cattle futures were an average of $1.10 higher. Feeder Cattle futures were an average of $2.93 higher. Negotiated cash fed cattle trade was mostly inactive on light demand in all [...]

This Day in Legal History: Paris Peace AccordsOn January 27, 1973, the United States signed the Paris Peace Accords, effectively marking the end of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. Though primarily a geopolitical and military agreement, the Paris Peace Accords had significant legal dimensions. Negotiated between the U.S., South Vietnam, North Vietnam, and the Viet Cong (under the banner of the Provisional Revolutionary Government), the accords represented a complex international legal settlement aimed at restoring peace in Vietnam and Southeast Asia.The agreement included provisions for a cease-fire, the withdrawal of U.S. troops, the release of prisoners of war, and the recognition of South Vietnamese sovereignty. Legally, the accords posed a challenge to domestic and international law frameworks, particularly in the way the U.S. executive branch negotiated and signed the agreement without formal Congressional approval. This would later contribute to the debate around the War Powers Resolution, passed in 1973, which sought to limit the president's ability to commit U.S. forces without legislative oversight.Though hailed as a diplomatic breakthrough, the accords failed to bring lasting peace. North Vietnam eventually overran the South in 1975, raising legal questions about treaty enforcement and the durability of international peace agreements brokered without strong enforcement mechanisms.A U.S. District Court judge in Minnesota is weighing whether to temporarily halt the Trump administration's aggressive immigration enforcement operation in the state, which has come under intense scrutiny following the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti, a U.S. citizen and nurse. Local officials from Minnesota, Minneapolis, and St. Paul argue the federal crackdown involves unlawful tactics, including warrantless home raids and racial profiling, carried out by over 2,800 heavily armed agents—more than the total local police force. The Biden-appointed judge, Katherine Menendez, acknowledged the unprecedented nature of the case.The administration, defending the operation, dismissed the lawsuit as baseless. However, video evidence contradicts the official account of Pretti's death, showing he was unarmed and holding a phone when agents shot him, despite claims he posed a threat with a firearm. The incident has fueled widespread protests and demands for federal de-escalation from both state leaders and major Minnesota-based companies like Target and 3M.President Trump has sent border czar Tom Homan to Minnesota, though it's unclear whether this signals an expansion or reassessment of federal actions. Trump says his administration is “reviewing everything” and that immigration agents will eventually withdraw. Tensions have also spilled into Washington, with Senate Democrats vowing to block DHS funding, risking a partial government shutdown. Meanwhile, even some Republicans are questioning the administration's approach.US judge to consider pause to Minnesota crackdown as Trump dispatches border czar | ReutersA federal judge in Boston has blocked the Trump administration from ending legal status for over 8,400 migrants from seven Latin American countries who had been allowed to live in the U.S. under family reunification parole programs. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani issued a preliminary injunction, preventing the Department of Homeland Security from terminating the programs, which benefited migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.These programs, created or expanded under President Biden, allowed U.S. citizens and green card holders to sponsor relatives while they awaited visa approval. The Trump administration moved to end the programs, claiming they were inconsistent with current enforcement priorities and enabled people to bypass traditional immigration processes.Talwani found that the administration failed to justify its decision, noting the government neither provided evidence of fraud nor assessed the real-life consequences for affected migrants. Many had already sold homes or left jobs in their home countries. She ruled that DHS's policy shift lacked a reasoned explanation and was therefore arbitrary and capricious under administrative law.The ruling is part of a broader class action brought by immigrant rights advocates challenging Trump's rollback of temporary protections. Talwani had previously tried to block similar efforts affecting hundreds of thousands of migrants, but those earlier rulings were overturned on appeal or by the Supreme Court.US judge blocks Trump administration's push to end legal status of 8,400 migrants | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week takes a look at the Empire State's budget. New York Governor Kathy Hochul's proposed no-tax-hike budget may appear fiscally cautious, but critics (includin me) argue it lacks the stable, long-term revenue needed to support key social programs like universal childcare. While the state currently enjoys relative revenue stability, the budget relies on temporary fixes, such as decoupling from parts of the federal tax code to generate $1.6 billion, instead of pursuing more durable sources of funding.My critique centers on Hochul's refusal to raise the top marginal corporate tax rate—currently 7.25% for large companies—which is lower than neighboring states like New Jersey (11.5%) and Connecticut (8.25%). I suggest raising the rate to at least 8.5% and making the existing corporate tax surcharge permanent. I argue that companies benefiting from New York's infrastructure and market can afford modest increases, and are unlikely to relocate given regional and national tax landscapes.Without securing permanent funding, the state risks repeating a familiar pattern: expanding programs in good times and cutting them during downturns. I warn that relying on temporary revenue maneuvers delays tough decisions and increases the likelihood of painful tax hikes or service cuts when the economy falters. In short, now is the time to align recurring revenues with long-term commitments, while conditions are favorable. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Last week's stronger cash fed cattle prices helped Cattle futures continue higher on Monday. Toward the close, Live Cattle futures were an average of $1.10 higher.  Feeder Cattle futures were an average of $2.35 higher Negotiated cash fed cattle trade was mostly inactive on light to moderate demand in all cattle feeding regions through [...]

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> Click On Picture To See Larger PictureThe world is continually paying the [CB]s more and more of their hard earned labor. In Germany the people are taxed 42%, almost half of their income. Fed inflation indicator reports no inflation, Truinflation reports inflation is at 1.2%.BoA and Citibank are in talks to offer 10% credit card. Trump says US will the crypto capital of the world. Globalism/[CB] system has failed, the power will return to the people. The patriots are sending a message, DOJ 2.0 is not like DOJ 1.0, same with the FBI, you commit a crime you will be arrested. The message is clear, the protection from these agencies are gone. Bondi arrest the Church rioters. Trump’s message at DAVOS is clear, the [DS] power and agenda is no more. Trump is now in control and the world will begin to move in a different direction, either you are on board or you will be left behind. The power belongs to the people.   Economy https://twitter.com/WallStreetMav/status/2014289396112011443?s=20 (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:18510697282300316,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8599-9832"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); Fed’s Favorite Inflation Indicator Refuses To Show Any Signs Of Runaway ‘Trump Tariff’ Costs The Fed’s favorite inflation indicator – Core PCE – rose 0.2% MoM (as expected), which leave it up 2.8% YoY (as expected), slightly lower than September’s +2.9%…   Bear in mind that this morning’s third look at Q3 GDP printed a +2.9% YoY for Core PCE. Under the hood, the biggest driver of Core PCE remains Services costs – not tariff-driven Goods prices…   In fact, on a MoM basis, Non-durable goods prices saw deflation for the second month in a row…   Source: zerohedge.com https://twitter.com/truflation/status/2014322072286302619?s=20 – Food – mostly Eggs – Household durables – particularly housekeeping supplies – Alcohol & tobacco – mostly alcoholic beverages Our number is derived by aggregating millions of real-time price data points every day to calculate a year-over-year CPI % rate. It is comparable but not identical to the survey-based official headline inflation released monthly by the BLS, which was 2.7% for December. Bank Of America, Citigroup May Launch Credit Cards With 10% Rate Two weeks after Trump shocked the world by demanding lenders cap credit card interest rates at 10% for one year, Bank of America and Citigroup are exploring options to do just that in an attempt to placate the president.  Bloomberg reports that both banks are mulling offering cards with a 10% rate cap as one potential solution.  Earlier this week, Trump said he would ask Congress to implement the proposal, giving the financial firms more clarity about what exact path he's pursuing. Bank executives have repeatedly decried the uniform cap, saying it'll cause lenders to have to pull credit lines for consumers.  Source: zerohedge.com Trump sues JPMorgan Chase and CEO Jamie Dimon for $5B over alleged ‘political’ debanking The lawsuit claims JPMorgan’s decision ‘came about as a result of political and social motivations’ to ‘distance itself’ Trump and his ‘conservative political views’  President Donald Trump is suing JPMorgan Chase and its CEO Jamie Dimon in a $5 billion lawsuit filed Thursday, accusing the financial institution of debanking him for political reasons. The president's attorney, Alejandro Brito, filed the lawsuit Thursday morning in Florida state court in Miami on behalf of the president and several of his hospitality companies.  “ Source: foxnews.com https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/2013984082640658888?s=20  WEF Finance/Banking Panel – If Independent National Economies Continue Rising, Global Trade Drops and We Lose Control Globalism in its economic construct is a series of dependencies. If those dependencies are severed, if each country has the ability to feed, produce and innovate independently, then the entire dependency model around globalism collapses. Within the globalism model that was historically created there was a group of people, western nations, banks, finance and various government leaders, who controlled the organization and rules of the trade dependencies.  The action being taken for self-sufficiency, in combination with the approach promoted by President Trump that each nation state should generate their own needs, then the rules-based order that has existed for global trade will collapse. If nations are no longer dependent, they become sovereign – able to exist without the need for support from other nations and systems. If nations are indeed sovereign, then globalism is no longer needed and a threat of the unknown rises. How will nations engage with each other if there is no governing body of western elites to make the rules for engagement?  The need for control is a reaction to fear, and it is the fear of self-reliance that permeates the elitist class within the control structures.   If each nation of the world is operating according to its individual best interests, the position of Donald Trump, then what happens to the governing elite who set up the system of interdependencies. This is the core of their fear. If each nation can suddenly grow tea, what happens to the East India Tea Company.  Who then sets the price for the tea, and worse still an entire distribution system (ships, ports, exchanges, banks, etc.) becomes functionally obsolescent. Source: theconservativetreehouse.com  Political/Rights TWO-TIERED JUSTICE: Conservative Journalist Kaitlin Bennett Charged and Fined for Interviewing Democrats in Public — While Don Lemon Storms Churches With Zero Consequences The United States now operates under a blatantly two-tiered justice system, where conservative journalists are criminally charged for speech in public spaces, while left-wing media figures face zero consequences for harassing Americans and disrupting religious services. Conservative journalist Kaitlin Bennett revealed this week that she was charged with a federal crime and fined by the National Park Service in St. Augustine for the so-called offense of asking Democrats questions on public property. According to Bennett, federal agents targeted her while she was conducting on-the-street interviews, a form of journalism protected by the First Amendment. Despite being on public land, Bennett says she was cited and punished simply for engaging in political speech that the Left finds inconvenient. Bennett addressed the incident directly in a post on X, writing: https://twitter.com/KaitMarieox/status/2014174254799958148?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2014174254799958148%7Ctwgr%5Ef4a6650cd0c60d38edfea018c5665c2cc2fe5199%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2026%2F01%2Ftwo-tier-justice-conservative-journalist-kaitlin-bennett-charged%2F When asked by another local journalist exactly what “lawful order” Bennett had disobeyed, the ranger reportedly could not provide a straight answer. WATCH: Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/DHSgov/status/2014322865848406370?s=20   Alexander Conejo Arias, fled on foot—abandoning his child. For the child's safety, one of our ICE officers remained with the child while the other officers apprehended Conejo Arias.   Parents are asked if they want to be removed with their children, or ICE will place the children with a safe person the parent designates. This is consistent with past administration's immigration enforcement. Parents can take control of their departure and receive a free flight and $2,600 with the CBP Home app. By using the CBP Home app illegal aliens reserve the chance to come back the right legal way. https://twitter.com/DHSgov/status/2014049440911303019?s=20   inflicting corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant. An immigration judge issued him a final order of removal in 2019. In a dangerous attempt to evade arrest, this criminal illegal alien weaponized his vehicle and rammed law enforcement. Fearing for his life and safety, an agent fired defensive shots. The criminal illegal alien was not hit and attempted to flee on foot. He was successfully apprehended by law enforcement. The illegal alien was not injured, but a CBP officer was injured.  These dangerous attempts to evade arrest have surged since sanctuary politicians, including Governor Newsom, have encouraged illegal aliens to evade arrest and provided guides advising illegal aliens how to recognize ICE, block entry, and defy arrest. Our officers are now facing a 3,200% increase in vehicle attacks. This situation is evolving, and more information is forthcoming.   https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/2014063905413177637?s=20  CNN Panelist Issues Retraction and Apology After Going Too Far in On-Air Trump Attack    footage of CNN's “Newsnight with Abby Phillip” was posted to social media platform X featuring 25-year-old leftist activist Cameron Kasky alongside panel mainstay Scott Jennings. A moment between the two went viral when Kasky casually declared that President Donald Trump had been involved in an international sex trafficking ring. Jennings wasn't going to let that remark go unchallenged by host John Berman. The topic of conversation had been Trump's interest in Greenland and the Nobel Peace Prize, but Kasky threw in a jab at Trump with an allusion to the president's relationship with the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein — an allusion Kasky's now trying to walk back. “I would love it if he was more transparent about the human sex trafficking network that he was a part of, but you can't win 'em all,” he blurted out. https://twitter.com/overton_news/status/2013455047288377517?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2013455047288377517%7Ctwgr%5E20edbbd712c7076d1aafdac2d1e39d7eb8307263%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2026%2F01%2Fcnn-panelist-issues-retraction-apology-going-far-air%2F   Berman asked Jennings a follow-up question about Greenland, but instead of addressing that, Jennings circled back to Kasky's remark. “You're gonna let that sit?” Jennings asked Berman. “Are we going to claim here on CNN that the president is part of a global sex trafficking ring or …?” After assuring Jennings that he would do the fact-checking, Berman asked Kasky to repeat what he'd said about the global sex-trafficking ring. “That Donald Trump was … probably … very involved with it,” the arrogant young man replied, with perhaps a touch less confidence. To Berman's credit, and the CNN legal team's, he immediately said, “Donald Trump has never been charged with any crimes in relation to Jeffrey Epstein.” https://twitter.com/camkasky/status/2013760245298864477?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2013760245298864477%7Ctwgr%5E20edbbd712c7076d1aafdac2d1e39d7eb8307263%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2026%2F01%2Fcnn-panelist-issues-retraction-apology-going-far-air%2F Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/ElectionWiz/status/2014189561002291385?s=20 DOGE Geopolitical https://twitter.com/brentdsadler/status/2014311942119137584?s=20  important as these agreements cover the entirety of the Chagos group of islands/features. Critical as future third party presence in those areas proximate Diego Garcia could in practical terms render those U.S. military facilities operationally impractical (ie useless). The current deal under consideration in the UK parliament in a rushed vote as soon as 2 February is ill advised. And it likely would break the decades long understanding with the U.S. government. See: Active U.S. treaties: https://state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Treaties-in-Force-2025-FINAL.pdf 1966 Foundational Understanding: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20603/volume-603-I-8737-English.pdf 1972 Understanding regarding new facilities on Diego Garcia: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20866/volume-866-I-8737-English.pdf 1976 Understanding and concurrence on new communications facilities on Diego Garcia and references as foundational the 1966 Understanding: https://treaties.fcdo.gov.uk/data/Library2/pdf/1976-TS0019.pdf?utm_source https://twitter.com/HansMahncke/status/2014150131247874267?s=20 The EU-Mercosur deal is a major free trade agreement between the European Union and the Mercosur bloc (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay). Negotiated for over 25 years, it aims to create one of the world’s largest free trade zones, covering more than 700 million people and reducing tariffs on goods like cars, machinery, pharmaceuticals, and agricultural products.  It includes commitments on sustainability, labor rights, and environmental protections, but critics argue these are insufficient to address issues like Amazon deforestation and unfair competition for European farmers. The agreement was politically finalized in 2019 but faced delays due to environmental concerns and opposition from countries like France and Austria. It was formally signed on January 17, 2026, after EU member states (with a qualified majority, despite opposition from five countries including France) greenlit it on January 9.  The Stupidity of Davos Explained Using an Example of Their Own Creation China is manufacturing a product to create a carbon credit certificate in response to the demand for carbon credits from all the world auto-makers.  Any nation that has a penalty or fine attached to their climate goals is a customer. Those are nations with fines or quotas associated with the production of gasoline powered engines if the auto company doesn't hit the legislated target for sales of electric vehicles. In essence, EU/AU/CA/RU/ASEAN car companies buy Chinese car company carbon credits, to avoid the EU/AU/CA/RU/ASEAN fines.  The Chinese then use the carbon credit revenue to subsidize even lower priced Chinese EVs to the EU/AU/CA/RU/ASEAN car markets, thereby undercutting the EU/AU/CA/RU/ASEAN car companies that also produce EVs. China brilliantly exploits the ridiculous pontificating climate scam and has an interest in perpetuating -even emphasizing- the need for the EU/AU/RU/ASEAN countries to keep pushing their climate agenda.  China even goes so far as to fund alarmism research about climate change because they are making money selling carbon credit certificates on the back end of the scam to the western fear mongers.  This is friggin' brilliant.   The climate change alarmists are helping China's economy by pushing ever escalating fear of climate change.  You just cannot make this stuff up. What does the outcome look like? Well, in this example we see hundreds of thousands of unsold BYDs piling up in countries that emphasize climate regulations with no restrictions on the import of EVs (which most don't even manufacture), which is almost every country.  Big Panda doesn't care about the car itself; they care about generating the carbon credit certificate to sell in the various carbon exchanges. Put this context to the recent announcement by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney about his new trade deal with China to accept 49,000 EVs this year. Prime Minister Carney bragged about getting the Chinese to agree to only super low prices for the Canadian market.  Mark Carney was very proud of his accomplishment to get much lower priced vehicles for Canadian EV purchasers.   No doubt Big Panda left the room laughing as soon as Carney made his grand announcement. 1. China sells EV's in Canada, creating credits available on the carbon exchange scheme. Europe et al will purchase the carbon credits because Bussels has fines against EU car companies. 2. With a foothold already established in Europe, China will then take the money generated by the carbon credit purchases and lower the prices of the Chinese EV cars sold in Canada. It's gets funnier. 3. Carney bragged about forcing China to only sell low price EV's as part of the trade agreement. The low price of the EV's in Canada will be subsidized by Europe. China doesn't pay or lose a dime. But wait…. 4. Carney can't do anything about the scheme he has just enmeshed Canada into, because Canada has a Carbon Credit exchange in law.

Negotiated cash fed cattle trade was inactive on light demand in all major cattle feeding regions through Monday afternoon. Last week, FOB live prices were $233/cwt. in Kansas, mostly $233 in Nebraska and mostly $232 in the western Corn Belt. Dressed delivered prices were mostly $365 in Nebraska and $363-$365 in the western Corn [...]

Cattle futures resumed higher Thursday. Toward the close, Live Cattle futures were an average of $1.62 higher. Feeder Cattle futures were an average of $3.76 higher. Negotiated cash fed cattle trade was inactive on light demand in all major cattle feeding regions through Thursday afternoon, according to the Agricultural Marketing Service. Last week, FOB [...]

Cattle futures softened Wednesday ahead of the week's negotiated cash fed cattle trade. Toward the close, Live Cattle futures were an average of $1.28 lower.  Feeder Cattle futures were an average of $2.17 lower. Negotiated cash fed cattle trade was inactive on light demand in all major cattle feeding regions through Wednesday afternoon, according [...]

In Episode 2 of Season 8, host Jeremy M. Evans examines one of the most urgent and unsettled issues in modern sports and entertainment: how artificial intelligence is reshaping media rights in ways that existing contracts, leagues, and laws never anticipated. As AI-generated content, synthetic voices, automated highlights, and data-driven distribution accelerate, Jeremy explores the growing disconnect between traditional media rights frameworks and emerging technology. This episode breaks down how AI challenges long-standing assumptions around ownership, licensing, publicity rights, and collective bargaining. Jeremy analyzes where current agreements fall short, why many stakeholders are exposed to unforeseen risk, and how leagues, teams, athletes, and broadcasters may find themselves in conflict over control and compensation. From intellectual property and right of publicity concerns to league governance and future-proof contracting, this discussion highlights why AI is not just a technological shift—but a legal and economic inflection point for sports media. Whether you are a lawyer, executive, creator, or investor, this episode provides critical insight into why proactive legal strategy matters as AI continues to redefine the value and control of sports content. (Season 8, Episode 2). Copyright 2026. California Sports Lawyer. All Rights Reserved. (www.CSLlegal.com) Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Cattle futures closed strongly higher Tuesday. Support included the sharp decrease in Corn futures, higher wholesale beef values and increasing optimism about higher cash fed cattle prices this week. Toward the close, Live Cattle futures were an average of $2.36 higher.  Feeder Cattle futures were an average of $5.42 higher. Negotiated cash fed cattle [...]

Cattle futures were higher Monday helped by the plunge in Corn futures, which was tied to the latest World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (see below). Toward the close, Live Cattle futures were an average of 82¢ higher (30¢ to $1.65 higher). Feeder Cattle futures were an average of $1.50 higher. Negotiated cash fed [...]

Cattle futures eased higher Thursday. Toward the close, Live Cattle futures were an average of $1.35 higher.   Feeder Cattle futures were an average of $1.51 higher (67¢ higher toward the back to $2.95 higher in spot Jan). Negotiated cash fed cattle trade ranged from inactive on light demand in Kansas to light on [...]

Cattle futures eased lower Wednesday with likely profit taking and awaiting the week's cash fed cattle trade. Toward the close, Live Cattle futures were an average of $1.56 lower ($2.10 lower toward the front to 65¢ lower at the back. Feeder Cattle futures were an average of $3.19 lower ($2.47 to $4.50 lower). Negotiated [...]

Cattle futures expanded gains Tuesday, led by Feeder Cattle and strong cash. Toward the close, Live Cattle futures were an average 80¢ higher. Feeder Cattle futures were an average of $3.31 higher. Negotiated cash fed cattle trade was inactive on light demand in all major cattle feeding regions through Tuesday afternoon, according to the [...]

Cattle futures continued higher Monday, following the significant bounce higher during the previous session and supported by last week's higher negotiated cash fed cattle prices and the recent bounce in wholesale beef values. Toward the close, Live Cattle futures were an average $1.14 higher. Feeder Cattle futures were an average of $2.82 higher. Negotiated [...]

PREVIEW THE ORIGINS OF THE DAGUERREOTYPE Colleague Anika Burgess. Author Anika Burgessdiscusses the 1839 unveiling of the daguerreotype by Louis Daguerre. Originally a scene painter, Daguerre negotiated with the French government while the public marveled at the "baffle belief" realism of this early photographic method, created in partnership with Nicéphore Niépce. 1913 FRANCE

Cattle futures continued higher Wednesday amid light holiday-trade. Toward the close, Live Cattle futures were an average $1.07 higher. Feeder Cattle futures were an average of $1.02 higher. Negotiated cash fed cattle trade was inactive on moderate demand in all major cattle feeding regions through Wednesday afternoon, according to the Agricultural Marketing Service. Last [...]

Cattle futures gained on Tuesday, led once again by Feeder Cattle. Toward the close, Live Cattle futures were an average $1.73 higher. Feeder Cattle futures were an average of $2.88 higher. Negotiated cash fed cattle trade was inactive on light demand in all major cattle feeding regions through Tuesday afternoon, according to the Agricultural [...]

Cattle futures were mainly higher Monday, led by Feeder Cattle. Toward the close, Live Cattle futures were an average 47¢ higher, except for an average of 43¢ lower in the front three contracts. Feeder Cattle futures were an average of $1.07 higher (47¢ higher at the back to $1.55 higher near the front). Negotiated [...]

Cattle futures sputtered during Wednesday's holiday-shortened session. Toward the close, Live Cattle futures were an average of 75¢ lower. Feeder Cattle futures were narrowly mixed, from an average of 26¢ lower in five contracts to an average of 32¢ higher. Negotiated cash fed cattle trade ranged from moderate on moderate demand in Nebraska to [...]

Cattle futures were lower Tuesday with profit taking and floundering wholesale beef values. Toward the close, Live Cattle futures were an average of $1.03 lower (7¢ lower toward the back to $2.22 lower at the front), except for 10¢ higher in the back contract. Feeder Cattle futures were an average of $1.48 lower. Negotiated [...]

Cattle futures extended gains Monday, supported by Friday's friendly Cattle on Feed report. Toward the close, Live Cattle futures were an average of 91¢ higher. Feeder Cattle futures were an average of $2.13 higher. Negotiated cash fed cattle trade was mostly inactive on light demand in all cattle feeding regions through Monday afternoon, according [...]

Negotiated cash fed cattle trade was moderate on moderate demand in Nebraska and the western Corn Belt through Thursday afternoon, according to the Agricultural Marketing Service. FOB live prices were unevenly steady in both regions at $228/cwt. Dressed delivered prices in Nebraska were $3 higher at mostly $358. Although too few to trend, there [...]

Cattle futures were lower Wednesday with overbought conditions and some likely profit taking. Toward the close, Live Cattle futures were an average of 79¢ lower. Feeder Cattle futures were an average of 92¢ lower. Negotiated cash fed cattle trade was inactive on light demand in all major cattle feeding regions through Wednesday afternoon, according [...]

Cattle futures closed mostly higher Monday with follow-through support from last week's higher cash prices. Toward the close, Live Cattle futures were an average of 56¢ higher (30¢ to $1.12 higher). Feeder Cattle futures were an average of 43¢ higher, except for an average of 64¢ lower in the back two contracts. Negotiated cash [...]

Feeder Cattle futures led Live Cattle higher on Tuesday. Toward the close, Feeder Cattle futures were an average of $2.15 higher. Live Cattle futures were an average of 30¢ higher. Negotiated cash fed cattle trade was inactive on light demand in all major cattle feeding regions through Tuesday afternoon, according to the Agricultural Marketing [...]

Negotiated cash fed cattle trade was mostly inactive on light to moderate demand in all regions through Friday afternoon, according to the Agricultural Marketing Service. For the week, based on the latest established trade, FOB live prices were $230/cwt., which was $5 higher in Kansas, $5-$10 higher in Nebraska, and $10 higher in the [...]

Cattle futures climbed higher Thursday, led by the surge in cash fed cattle prices. Live Cattle futures were an average of $2.15 higher. Feeder Cattle futures were an average of $4.78 higher. Negotiated cash fed cattle trade ranged from moderate on moderate demand in Kansas to light to moderate on moderate demand in the [...]

Cattle futures gained on Wednesday. Live Cattle futures closed an average of $1.54 higher, except for 2¢ lower in spot Dec. Feeder Cattle futures were an average of $2.13 higher. They're up sharply on Thursday with reports of higher cash fed cattle prices. Through Wednesday afternoon, Negotiated cash fed cattle trade was mostly inactive [...]

Cattle futures wobbled Tuesday with indecisive two-sided trade. Toward the close, Live Cattle futures were an average of 25¢ higher, except for 53¢ lower in two contracts. Feeder Cattle futures were an average of 45¢ lower, except for 32¢ higher in Nov. Negotiated cash fed cattle trade was mostly inactive on light demand through [...]

Cattle futures stepped back from recent gains on Monday with likely profit taking and technical selling. Toward the close, Live Cattle futures were an average of 81¢ lower, except for 17¢ higher in spot Dec. Feeder Cattle futures were an average of $2.76 lower. Negotiated cash fed cattle trade was mostly inactive on light [...]

Cattle futures eased were higher once again Thursday, buoyed by stronger cash fed cattle prices. Toward the close, Live Cattle futures were an average of $1.43 higher. Feeder Cattle futures were an average of $3.60 higher, except for 40¢ lower in the back contract. Negotiated cash fed cattle trade was moderate on moderate to [...]

Cattle futures eased higher Wednesday amid chatter that cash fed cattle prices could improve this week. Toward the close, Live Cattle futures were an average of 91¢ higher. Feeder Cattle futures were an average of $2.17 higher. Negotiated cash fed cattle trade was inactive on light demand in all major cattle feeding regions through [...]

 If you're a scientist, and you apply for federal research funding, you'll ask for a specific dollar amount. Let's say you're asking for a million-dollar grant. Your grant covers the direct costs, things like the salaries of the researchers that you're paying. If you get that grant, your university might get an extra $500,000. That money is called “indirect costs,” but think of it as overhead: that money goes to lab space, to shared equipment, and so on.This is the system we've used to fund American research infrastructure for more than 60 years. But earlier this year, the Trump administration proposed capping these payments at just 15% of direct costs, way lower than current indirect cost rates. There are legal questions about whether the admin can do that. But if it does, it would force universities to fundamentally rethink how they do science.The indirect costs system is pretty opaque from the outside. Is the admin right to try and slash these indirect costs? Where does all that money go? And if we want to change how we fund research overhead, what are the alternatives? How do you design a research system to incentivize the research you actually wanna see in the world?I'm joined today by Pierre Azoulay from MIT Sloan and Dan Gross from Duke's Fuqua School of Business. Together with Bhaven Sampat at Johns Hopkins, they conducted the first comprehensive empirical study of how indirect costs actually work. Earlier this year, I worked with them to write up that study as a more accessible policy brief for IFP. They've assembled data on over 350 research institutions, and they found some striking results. While negotiated rates often exceed 50-60%, universities actually receive much less, due to built-in caps and exclusions.Moreover, the institutions that would be hit hardest by proposed cuts are those whose research most often leads to new drugs and commercial breakthroughs.Thanks to Katerina Barton, Harry Fletcher-Wood, and Inder Lohla for their help with this episode, and to Beez for her help on the charts.Let's say I'm a researcher at a university and I apply for a federal grant. I'm looking at cancer cells in mice. It will cost me $1 million to do that research — to pay grad students, to buy mice and test tubes. I apply for a grant from the National Institutes of Health, or NIH. Where do indirect costs come in?Dan Gross: Research generally incurs two categories of costs, much as business operations do.* Direct or variable costs are typically project-specific; they include salaries and consumable supplies.* Indirect or fixed costs are not as easily assigned to any particular project. [They include] things like lab space, data and computing resources, biosecurity, keeping the lights on and the buildings cooled and heated — even complying with the regulatory requirements the federal government imposes on researchers. They are the overhead costs of doing research.Pierre Azoulay: You will use those grad students, mice, and test tubes, the direct costs. But you're also using the lab space. You may be using a shared facility where the mice are kept and fed. Pieces of large equipment are shared by many other people to conduct experiments. So those are fixed costs from the standpoint of your research project.Dan: Indirect Cost Recovery (ICR) is how the federal government has been paying for the fixed cost of research for the past 60 years. This has been done by paying universities institution-specific fixed percentages on top of the direct cost of the research. That's the indirect cost rate. That rate is negotiated by institutions, typically every two to four years, supported by several hundred pages of documentation around its incurred costs over the recent funding cycle.The idea is to compensate federally funded researchers for the investments, infrastructure, and overhead expenses related to the research they perform for the government. Without that funding, universities would have to pay those costs out of pocket and, frankly, many would not be interested or able to do the science the government is funding them to do.Imagine I'm doing my mouse cancer science at MIT, Pierre's parent institution. Some time in the last four years, MIT had this negotiation with the National Institutes of Health to figure out what the MIT reimbursable rate is. But as a researcher, I don't have to worry about what indirect costs are reimbursable. I'm all mouse research, all day.Dan: These rates are as much of a mystery to the researchers as it is to the public. When I was junior faculty, I applied for an external grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF) — you can look up awards folks have won in the award search portal. It doesn't break down indirect and direct cost shares of each grant. You see the total and say, “Wow, this person got $300,000.” Then you go to write your own grant and realize you can only budget about 60% of what you thought, because the rest goes to overhead. It comes as a bit of a shock the first time you apply for grant funding.What goes into the overhead rates? Most researchers and institutions don't have clear visibility into that. The process is so complicated that it's hard even for those who are experts to keep track of all the pieces.Pierre: As an individual researcher applying for a project, you think about the direct costs of your research projects. You're not thinking about the indirect rate. When the research administration of your institution sends the application, it's going to apply the right rates.So I've got this $1 million experiment I want to run on mouse cancer. If I get the grant, the total is $1.5 million. The university takes that .5 million for the indirect costs: the building, the massive microscope we bought last year, and a tiny bit for the janitor. Then I get my $1 million. Is that right?Dan: Duke University has a 61% indirect cost rate. If I propose a grant to the NSF for $100,000 of direct costs — it might be for data, OpenAI API credits, research staff salaries — I would need to budget an extra $61,000 on top for ICR, bringing the total grant to $161,000.My impression is that most federal support for research happens through project-specific grants. It's not these massive institutional block grants. Is that right?Pierre: By and large, there aren't infrastructure grants in the science funding system. There are other things, such as center grants that fund groups of investigators. Sometimes those can get pretty large — the NIH grant for a major cancer center like Dana-Farber could be tens of millions of dollars per year.Dan: In the past, US science funding agencies did provide more funding for infrastructure and the instrumentation that you need to perform research through block grants. In the 1960s, the NSF and the Department of Defense were kicking up major programs to establish new data collection efforts — observatories, radio astronomy, or the Deep Sea Drilling project the NSF ran, collecting core samples from the ocean floor around the world. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) — back then the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) — was investing in nuclear test detection to monitor adherence to nuclear test ban treaties. Some of these were satellite observation methods for atmospheric testing. Some were seismic measurement methods for underground testing. ARPA supported the installation of a network of seismic monitors around the world. Those monitors are responsible for validating tectonic plate theory. Over the next decade, their readings mapped the tectonic plates of the earth. That large-scale investment in research infrastructure is not as common in the US research policy enterprise today.That's fascinating. I learned last year how modern that validation of tectonic plate theory was. Until well into my grandparents' lifetime, we didn't know if tectonic plates existed.Dan: Santi, when were you born?1997.Dan: So I'm a good decade older than you — I was born in 1985. When we were learning tectonic plate theory in the 1990s, it seemed like something everybody had always known. It turns out that it had only been known for maybe 25 years.So there's this idea of federal funding for science as these massive pieces of infrastructure, like the Hubble Telescope. But although projects like that do happen, the median dollar the Feds spend on science today is for an individual grant, not installing seismic monitors all over the globe.Dan: You applied for a grant to fund a specific project, whose contours you've outlined in advance, and we provided the funding to execute that project.Pierre: You want to do some observations at the observatory in Chile, and you are going to need to buy a plane ticket — not first class, not business class, very much economy.Let's move to current events. In February of this year, the NIH announced it was capping indirect cost reimbursement at 15% on all grants.What's the administration's argument here?Pierre: The argument is there are cases where foundations only charge 15% overhead rate on grants — and universities acquiesce to such low rates — and the federal government is entitled to some sort of “most-favored nation” clause where no one pays less in overhead than they pay. That's the argument in this half-a-page notice. It's not much more elaborate than that.The idea is, the Gates Foundation says, “We will give you a grant to do health research and we're only going to pay 15% indirect costs.” Some universities say, “Thank you. We'll do that.” So clearly the universities don't need the extra indirect cost reimbursement?Pierre: I think so.Dan: Whether you can extrapolate from that to federal research funding is a different question, let alone if federal research was funding less research and including even less overhead. Would foundations make up some of the difference, or even continue funding as much research, if the resources provided by the federal government were lower? Those are open questions. Foundations complement federal funding, as opposed to substitute for it, and may be less interested in funding research if it's less productive.What are some reasons that argument might be misguided?Pierre: First, universities don't always say, “Yes” [to a researcher wishing to accept a grant]. At MIT, getting a grant means getting special authorization from the provost. That special authorization is not always forthcoming. The provost has a special fund, presumably funded out of the endowment, that under certain conditions they will dip into to make up for the missing overhead.So you've got some research that, for whatever reason, the federal government won't fund, and the Gates Foundation is only willing to fund it at this low rate, and the university has budgeted a little bit extra for those grants that it still wants.Pierre: That's my understanding. I know that if you're going to get a grant, you're going to have to sit in many meetings and cajole any number of administrators, and you don't always get your way.Second, it's not an apples-to-apples comparison [between federal and foundation grants] because there are ways to budget an item as a direct cost in a foundation grant that the government would consider an indirect cost. So you might budget some fractional access to a facility…Like the mouse microscope I have to use?Pierre: Yes, or some sort of Cryo-EM machine. You end up getting more overhead through the back door.The more fundamental way in which that approach is misguided is that the government wants its infrastructure — that it has contributed to through [past] indirect costs — to be leveraged by other funders. It's already there, it's been paid for, it's sitting idle, and we can get more bang for our buck if we get those additional funders to piggyback on that investment.Dan: That [other funders] might not be interested in funding otherwise.Why wouldn't they be interested in funding it otherwise? What shouldn't the federal government say, “We're going to pay less. If it's important research, somebody else will pay for it.”Dan: We're talking about an economies-of-scale problem. These are fixed costs. The more they're utilized, the more the costs get spread over individual research projects.For the past several decades, the federal government has funded an order of magnitude more university research than private firms or foundations. If you look at NSF survey data, 55% of university R&D is federally funded; 6% is funded by foundations. That is an order of magnitude difference. The federal government has the scale to support and extract value for whatever its goals are for American science.We haven't even started to get into the administrative costs of research. That is part of the public and political discomfort with indirect-cost recovery. The idea that this is money that's going to fund university bloat.I should lay my cards on the table here for readers. There are a ton of problems with the American scientific enterprise as it currently exists. But when you look at studies from a wide range of folks, it's obvious that R&D in American universities is hugely valuable. Federal R&D dollars more than pay for themselves. I want to leave room for all critiques of the scientific ecosystem, of the universities, of individual research ideas. But at this 30,000-foot level, federal R&D dollars are well spent.Dan: The evidence may suggest that, but that's not where the political and public dialogue around science policy is. Again, I'm going to bring in a long arc here. In the 1950s and 1960s, it was, “We're in a race with the Soviet Union. If we want to win this race, we're going to have to take some risky bets.” And the US did. It was more flexible with its investments in university and industrial science, especially related to defense aims. But over time, with the waning of these political pressures and with new budgetary pressures, the tenor shifted from, “Let's take chances” to “Let's make science and other parts of government more accountable.” The undercurrent of Indirect Cost Recovery policy debates has more of this accountability framing.This comes up in this comparison to foundation rates: “Is the government overpaying?” Clearly universities are willing to accept less from foundations. It comes up in this perception that ICR is funding administrative growth that may not be productive or socially efficient. Accountability seems to be a priority in the current day.Where are we right now [August 2025] on that 15% cap on indirect costs?Dan: Recent changes first kicked off on February 7th, when NIH posted its supplemental guidance, that introduced a policy that the direct cost rates that it paid on its grants would be 15% to institutions of higher education. That policy was then adopted by the NSF, the DOD, and the Department of Energy. All of these have gotten held up in court by litigation from universities. Things are stuck in legal limbo. Congress has presented its point of view that, “At least for now, I'd like to keep things as they are.” But this has been an object of controversy long before the current administration even took office in January. I don't think it's going away.Pierre: If I had to guess, the proposal as it first took shape is not what is going to end up being adopted. But the idea that overhead rates are an object of controversy — are too high, and need to be reformed — is going to stay relevant.Dan: Partly that's because it's a complicated issue. Partly there's not a real benchmark of what an appropriate Indirect Cost Recovery policy should be. Any way you try to fund the cost of research, you're going to run into trade-offs. Those are complicated.ICR does draw criticism. People think it's bloated or lacks transparency. We would agree some of these critiques are well-founded. Yet it's also important to remember that ICR pays for facilities and administration. It doesn't just fund administrative costs, which is what people usually associate it with. The share of ICR that goes to administrative costs is legally capped at 26% of direct costs. That cap has been in place since 1991. Many universities have been at that cap for many years — you can see this in public records. So the idea that indirect costs are going up over time, and that that's because of bloat at US universities, has to be incorrect, because the administrative rate has been capped for three decades.Many of those costs are incurred in service of complying with regulations that govern research, including the cost of administering ICR to begin with. Compiling great proposals every two to four years and a new round of negotiations — all of that takes resources. Those are among the things that indirect cost funding reimburses.Even then, universities appear to under-recover their true indirect costs of federally-sponsored research. We have examples from specific universities which have reported detailed numbers. That under-recovery means less incentive to invest in infrastructure, less capacity for innovation, fewer clinical trials. So there's a case to be made that indirect cost funding is too low.Pierre: The bottom line is we don't know if there is under- or over-recovery of indirect costs. There's an incentive for university administrators to claim there's under-recovery. So I take that with a huge grain of salt.Dan: It's ambiguous what a best policy would look like, but this is all to say that, first, public understanding of this complex issue is sometimes a bit murky. Second, a path forward has to embrace the trade-offs that any particular approach to ICR presents.From reading your paper, I got a much better sense that a ton of the administrative bloat of the modern university is responding to federal regulations on research. The average researcher reports spending almost half of their time on paperwork. Some of that is a consequence of the research or grant process; some is regulatory compliance.The other thing, which I want to hear more on, is that research tools seem to be becoming more expensive and complex. So the microscope I'm using today is an order of magnitude more expensive than the microscope I was using in 1950. And you've got to recoup those costs somehow.Pierre: Everything costs more than it used to. Research is subject to Baumol's cost disease. There are areas where there's been productivity gains — software has had an impact.The stakes are high because, if we get this wrong, we're telling researchers that they should bias the type of research they're going to pursue and training that they're going to undergo, with an eye to what is cheaper. If we reduce the overhead rate, we should expect research that has less fixed cost and more variable costs to gain in favor — and research that is more scale-intensive to lose favor. There's no reason for a benevolent social planner to find that a good development. The government should be neutral with respect to the cost structure of research activities. We don't know in advance what's going to be more productive.Wouldn't a critic respond, “We're going to fund a little bit of indirect costs, but we're not going to subsidize stuff that takes huge amounts of overhead. If universities want to build that fancy new telescope because it's valuable, they'll do it.” Why is that wrong when it comes to science funding?Pierre: There's a grain of truth to it.Dan: With what resources though? Who's incentivized to invest in this infrastructure? There's not a paid market for science. Universities can generate some licensing fees from patents that result from science. But those are meager revenue streams, realistically. There are reasons to believe that commercial firms are under-incentivized to invest in basic scientific research. Prior to 1940, the scientific enterprise was dramatically smaller because there wasn't funding the way that there is today. The exigencies of war drew the federal government into funding research in order to win. Then it was productive enough that folks decided we should keep doing it. History and economic logic tells us that you're not going to see as much science — especially in these fixed-cost heavy endeavors — when those resources aren't provided by the public.Pierre: My one possible answer to the question is, “The endowment is going to pay for it.” MIT has an endowment, but many other universities do not. What does that mean for them? The administration also wants to tax the heck out of the endowment.This is a good opportunity to look at the empirical work you guys did in this great paper. As far as I can tell, this was one of the first real looks at what indirect costs rates look like in real life. What did you guys find?Dan: Two decades ago, Pierre and Bhaven began collecting information on universities' historical indirect cost rates. This is a resource that was quietly sitting on the shelf waiting for its day. That day came this past February. Bhaven and Pierre collected information on negotiated ICR rates for the past 60 years. During this project, we also collected the most recent versions of those agreements from university websites to bring the numbers up to the current day.We pulled together data for around 350 universities and other research institutions. Together, they account for around 85% of all NIH research funding over the last 20 years.We looked at their:* Negotiated indirect cost rates, from institutional indirect cost agreements with the government, and their;* Effective rates [how much they actually get when you look at grant payments], using NIH grant funding data.Negotiated cost rates have gone up. That has led to concerns that the overhead cost of research is going up — these claims that it's funding administrative bloat. But our most important finding is that there's a large gap between the sticker rates — the negotiated ICR rates that are visible to the public, and get floated on Twitter as examples of university exorbitance — and the rates that universities are paid in practice, at least on NIH grants; we think it's likely the case for NSF and other agency grants too.An institution's effective ICR funding rates are much, much lower than their negotiated rates and they haven't changed much for 40 years. If you look at NIH's annual budget, the share of grant funding that goes to indirect costs has been roughly constant at 27-28% for a long time. That implies an effective rate of around 40% over direct costs. Even though many institutions have negotiated rates of 50-70%, they usually receive 30-50%.The difference between those negotiated rates and the effective rates seems to be due to limits and exceptions built into NIH grant rules. Those rules exclude some grants, such as training grants, from full indirect cost funding. They also exclude some direct costs from the figure used to calculate ICR rates. The implication is that institutions receive ICR payments based on a smaller portion of their incurred direct costs than typically assumed. As the negotiated direct cost falls, you see a university being paid a higher indirect cost rate off a smaller — modified — direct cost base, to recover the same amount of overhead.Is it that the federal government is saying for more parts of the grant, “We're not going to reimburse that as an indirect cost.”?Dan: This is where we shift a little bit from assessment to speculation. What's excluded from total direct costs? One thing is researcher salaries above a certain level.What is that level? Can you give me a dollar amount?Dan: It's a $225,700 annual salary. There aren't enough people being paid that on these grants for that to explain the difference, especially when you consider that research salaries are being paid to postdocs and grad students.You're looking around the scientists in your institution and thinking, “That's not where the money is”?Dan: It's not, even if you consider Principal Investigators. If you consider postdocs and grad students, it certainly isn't.Dan: My best hunch is that research projects have become more capital-intensive, and only a certain level of expenditure on equipment can be included in the modified total direct cost base. I don't have smoking gun evidence, it's my intuition.In the paper, there's this fascinating chart where you show the institutions that would get hit hardest by a 15% cap tend to be those that do the most valuable medical research. Explain that on this framework. Is it that doing high-quality medical research is capital-intensive?Pierre: We look at all the private-sector patents that build on NIH research. The more a university stands to lose under the administration policy, the more it has contributed over the past 25 years — in research the private sector found relevant in terms of pharmaceutical patents.This is counterintuitive if your whole model of funding for science is, “Let's cut subsidies for the stuff the private sector doesn't care about — all this big equipment.” When you cut those subsidies, what suffers most is the stuff that the private sector likes.Pierre: To me it makes perfect sense. This is the stuff that the private sector would not be willing to invest in on its own. But that research, having come into being, is now a very valuable input into activities that profit-minded investors find interesting and worth taking a risk on.This is the argument for the government to fund basic research?Pierre: That argument has been made at the macro-level forever, but the bibliometric revolution of the past 15 years allows you to look at this at the nano-level. Recently I've been able to look at the history of Ozempic. The main patent cites zero publicly-funded research, but it cites a bunch of patents, including patents taken up by academics. Those cite the foundational research performed by Joel Habener and his team at Massachusetts General Hospital in the early 1980s that elucidated the role of GLP-1 as a potential target. This grant was first awarded to Habener in 1979, was renewed every four or five years, and finally died in 2008, when he moved on to other things. Those chains are complex, but we can now validate the macro picture at this more granular level.Dan: I do want to add one qualification which also suggests some directions for the future. There are things we still can't see — despite Pierre's zeal. Our projections of the consequence of a 15% rate cap are still pretty coarse. We don't know what research might not take place. We don't know what indirect cost categories are exposed, or how universities would reallocate. All those things are going to be difficult to project without a proper experiment.One thing that I would've loved to have more visibility into is, “What is the structure of indirect costs at universities across the country? What share of paid indirect costs are going to administrative expenses? What direct cost categories are being excluded?” We would need a more transparency into the system to know the answers.Does that information have to be proprietary? It's part of negotiations with the federal government about how much the taxpayer will pay for overhead on these grants. Which piece is so special that it can't be shared?Pierre: You are talking to the wrong people here because we're meta-scientists, so our answer is none of it should be private.Dan: But now you have to ask the university lawyers.What would the case from the universities be? “We can't tell the public what we spend subsidy on”?Pierre: My sense is that there are institutions of academia that strike most lay people as completely bizarre.Hard to explain without context?Pierre: People haven't thought about it. They will find it so bizarre that they will typically jump from the odd aspect to, “That must be corruption.” University administrators are hugely attuned to that. So the natural defensive approach is to shroud it in secrecy. This way we don't see how the sausage is made.Dan: Transparency can be a blessing and a curse. More information supports more considered decision-making. It also opens the door to misrepresentation by critics who have their own agendas. Pierre's right: there are some practices that to the public might look unusual — or might be familiar, but one might say, “How is that useful expense?” Even a simple thing like having an administrator who manages a faculty's calendar might seem excessive. Many people manage their own calendars. At the same time, when you think about how someone's time is best used, given their expertise, and heavy investment in specialized human capital, are emails, calendaring, and note-taking the right things for scientists [to be doing]? Scientists spend a large chunk of their time now administering grants. Does it make sense to outsource that and preserve the scientist's time for more science?When you put forward data that shows some share of federal research funding is going to fund administrative costs, at first glance it might look wasteful, yet it might still be productive. But I would be able to make a more considered judgment on a path forward if I had access to more facts, including what indirect costs look like under the hood.One last question: in a world where you guys have the ear of the Senate, political leadership at the NIH, and maybe the universities, what would you be pushing for on indirect costs?Pierre: I've come to think that this indirect cost rate is a second-best institution: terrible and yet superior to many of the alternatives. My favorite alternative would be one where there would be a flat rate applied to direct costs. That would be the average effective rate currently observed — on the order of 40%.You're swapping out this complicated system to — in the end — reimburse universities the same 40%.Pierre: We know there are fixed costs. Those fixed costs need to be paid. We could have an elaborate bureaucratic apparatus to try to get it exactly right, but it's mission impossible. So why don't we give up on that and set a rate that's unlikely to lead to large errors in under- or over-recovery. I'm not particularly attached to 40%. But the 15% that was contemplated seems absurdly low.Dan: In the work we've done, we do lay out different approaches. The 15% rate wouldn't fully cut out the negotiation process: to receive that, you have to document your overhead costs and demonstrate that they reached that level. In any case, it's simplifying. It forces more cost-sharing and maybe more judicious investments by universities. But it's also so low that it's likely to make a significant amount of high-value, life-improving research economically unattractive.The current system is complicated and burdensome. It might encourage investment in less productive things, particularly because universities can get it paid back through future ICR. At the same time, it provides pretty good incentives to take on expensive, high-value research on behalf of the public.I would land on one of two alternatives. One of those is close to what Pierre said, with fixed rates, but varied by institution types: one for universities, one for medical schools, one for independent research institutions — because we do see some variation in their cost structures. We might set those rates around their historical average effective rates, since those haven't changed for quite a long time. If you set different rates for different categories of institution, the more finely you slice the pie, the closer you end up to the current system. So that's why I said maybe, at a very high level, four categories.The other I could imagine is to shift more of these costs “above the line” — to adapt the system to enable more of these indirect costs to be budgeted as direct costs in grants. This isn't always easy, but presumably some things we currently call indirect costs could be accounted for in a direct cost manner. Foundations do it a bit more than the federal government does, so that could be another path forward.There's no silver bullet. Our goal was to try to bring some understanding to this long-running policy debate over how to fund the indirect cost of research and what appropriate rates should be. It's been a recurring question for several decades and now is in the hot seat again. Hopefully through this work, we've been able to help push that dialogue along. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

Lebanon's Failure to Disarm Hezbollah Amid Regeneration — John Batchelor, Bill Roggio, David Daoud — Roggio documents that the Lebanese government continues to systematically refuse enforcement of Hezbollahdisarmament provisions negotiated in the ceasefire agreement one year prior, instead employing rhetorical frameworks of "dialogue and consensus." Daoud reports that the Trump administration is growing impatient with this intransigence, explicitly setting deadlines for Lebanese compliance and action. Batchelor emphasizes that Hezbollah is regenerating with unprecedented speed, focusing on easily manufactured assets including drone swarms, rendering the Lebanesestrategic concept of "containment" operationally meaningless and strategically ineffective in limiting Hezbollahcapabilities. 1902 CARACAS

Cattle futures surged higher Tuesday with little apparent cause other than oversold conditions and perhaps easing headline pressure, at least for the day. Toward the close, Live Cattle futures were an average of $4.75 higher. Feeder Cattle futures were an average of $8.41 higher. Negotiated cash fed cattle trade was mostly inactive on light [...]

Cattle futures climbed higher Wednesday, suggesting a bottom may have been established. Toward the close, Live Cattle futures were an average of $4.63 higher. Feeder Cattle futures were an average of $8.06 higher. Negotiated cash fed cattle trade ranged from limited on moderate demand in the North to inactive on light to moderate demand [...]

Negotiated cash fed cattle prices continue to lose ground this week. FOB live sales were $8-$9 lower in Nebraska at $209-$212/cwt. Dressed delivered prices were $10-$15 lower at $330. That was on moderate trade and good demand through Tuesday afternoon, according to the Agricultural Marketing Service. Similarly, FOB live prices were $7-$10 lower in [...]

Cattle futures continued to unwind Thursday. Toward the close, Live Cattle futures were an average of $2.01 lower. Feeder Cattle futures were an average of $3.92 lower. Negotiated cash fed cattle trade ranged from light on moderate demand in the western Corn Belt to limited on moderate demand in Nebraska and Kansas. Trade was [...]

A Chinese envoy has called for a negotiated settlement to the Ukraine crisis. China's permanent representative to the UN told the Security Council that ongoing fighting and the approaching winter are creating a severe humanitarian situation.

Gregory Copley Gregory Copley discusses the US military presence off Venezuela, noting President Trump seeks a negotiated outcome with Maduro to avoid long-term intervention, 

A new book explores the extraordinary escapades undertaken by diplomats and revolutionaries to forge alliances abroad in support of Irish independence during the 1920s. Joining Tom Dunne in for Sean to talk about it all was the Editor of the book ‘The Irish Revolution: -Diplomacy and Reactions 1919-1923' Mervyn O'Driscoll,

From a Philadelphia classroom to Malibu boardrooms, trailblazer Dolores Robinson unspools a life of firsts, grit, and sly humor on this episode of Big Conversations, Little Bar with Patrick Evans and Randy Florence. The first Black female talent manager in film and television recounts launching LaVar Burton after Roots, guiding Martin Sheen post–Apocalypse Now, and negotiating a game-changing million-dollar payday for Michael Clarke Duncan. She shares candid memories of Al Pacino as a surprise “date,” insights on the Will Smith–Chris Rock fallout, and why football isn't as important as baseball, as she cheers the World Champion Los Angeles Dodgers for whom her grandson is employed in their clubhouse. Delores reflects on breaking color and gender barriers, building relationships across Hollywood's power circles, and reinventing herself after setbacks, from single motherhood to starting at a receptionist's desk. There are tender turns, too: a cross-country escape, a glass-ceiling award, and a family discovery through ancestry that reshaped her story. It's a funny, human masterclass in resilience, representation, and saying yes to opportunity.Takeaways:Delores Robinson broke barriers as Hollywood's first Black female talent manager.She helped launch LaVar Burton's career post-Roots and sparked Reading Rainbow.Managed Martin Sheen and advocated fiercely for proper billing and opportunities.Negotiated a million-dollar deal for Michael Clarke Duncan on The Scorpion King.Shared insider perspective on the Will Smith–Chris Rock incident and its fallout.Personal journey from Philly teacher to Malibu, starting as a receptionist and rising fast.Family and community matter: Dodgers loyalty through her grandson's clubhouse job; deep ties across Hollywood.Life lesson: seize opportunities, reject pity, and build relationships that open doors.#BigConversationsLittleBarPodcast #PatrickEvans #RandyFlorence #SkipsLittleBar #MutualBroadcastingSystem #CoachellaValleyResidents #SkipPaige #McCallumTheatre #DoloresRobinson #HollywoodHistory #TalentManager #LaVarBurton #MartinSheen #ReadingRainbow #LADodgers #WillSmith #ChrisRock #PalmDesert #Inspiration #StarTrek

Cattle futures moved lower again on Thursday with follow-through pressure and lower negotiated cash fed cattle prices for the week. Toward the close, Live Cattle futures were an average of 74¢ lower, except for $1.85 higher in the back contract. Feeder Cattle futures were an average of $4.96 lower. Negotiated cash fed cattle trade [...]

Cattle futures extended losses Wednesday, trading mostly limit-down, as traders hunt for a bottom to the emotionally driven break, tied to President Trumps goal of lowering domestic retail beef prices. Toward the close, Live Cattle futures were an average of $7.20 lower. Feeder Cattle futures were an average of $9.19 lower. Negotiated cash fed [...]

In September of 2021 a suspect involved in a carjacking and attempted homicide led police in a vehicle pursuit that ended in a car crash in Farmington Utah.  The suspect fled on foot across Interstate 15 into a residential neighborhood prompting patrol officers to establish a perimeter and begin a search with a K9 unit.  During the search a single gunshot was heard,  South Davis Metropolitan SWAT and North Davis Metropolitan SWAT were both activated to conduct a house -to-house search. Operators discovered a bullet hole in a residence window, and shortly after, a male exited nearby home in a vehicle. He was stopped and informed operators that his family was being held hostage and that the suspect had sent him to check for police. As operators moved toward the residence, a juvenile female escaped through a window. Debriefing the father and daughter, it became clear that three more hostages remained inside the home with an armed suspect. Negotiated side and a handgun was recovered next to his body. My guest today is Lieutenant Andrew Smith. Andrew began his law enforcement career with the Utah Highway Patrol in 2008. In 2011, he left the highway and began working for the West Bountiful Police Department. He joined the South Davis Metropolitan SWAT team in 2012 and eventually moved to the Bountiful City Police Department in 2013, where he worked his way through various assignments and promoted to the rank of lieutenant and team commander of the South Davis Metropolitan SWAT team. Anders held numerous leadership positions in the department, including FTO, lead scout, entry team member, and assistant team leader, and is currently the South Davis Metropolitan SWAT team commander. He's been honored with numerous unit citations as a member of the police department and SWAT team, including his involvement in two hostage rescue operations and two Bountiful City Police Department chief stars, one of which was for his response to an active shooter at a local junior high.Contact Info:Lt Andrew Smith – asmith@bountiful.govBooksLegacy by James Kerr – ISBN-13 - 978-1472103536 

Public Service Loan Forgiveness could look very different if the new proposed rules move forward. The Trump administration is exploring ways to strip PSLF eligibility from employees of organizations the administration doesn't like. That could mean hospitals, nonprofits, or legal aid groups suddenly losing access to forgiveness — with no way for employees to appeal. We also get into ongoing rulemaking around professional degree borrowing limits and repayment plan updates, plus smart moves for refinancing or managing your mortgage. Key moments: (01:15) The four main categories that could determine loss of PSLF eligibility (08:38) Negotiated rulemaking and new borrowing limits for professional degrees (12:27) When refinancing your student loans or mortgage makes sense (18:14) Your 2025 tax returns will be very important for income-driven repayment   Like the show? There are several ways you can help! Follow on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or Amazon Music Leave an honest review on Apple Podcasts  Subscribe to the newsletter Feeling helpless when it comes to your student loans? Try our free student loan calculator Check out our refinancing bonuses we negotiated Book your custom student loan plan Get profession-specific financial planning Do you have a question about student loans? Leave us a voicemail here or email us at help@studentloanplanner.com and we might feature it in an upcoming show!  

Queasiness about political intent for the cattle markets and wonderments about resumption of cattle imports from Mexico pressured Cattle futures on Tuesday. Toward the close, Live Cattle futures were an average of $4.25 lower. Feeder Cattle futures were an average of $8.09 lower. Negotiated cash fed cattle trade was inactive on light demand in [...]

Fundamentals appeared to return to Cattle futures trade Monday as prices gained back some of the recent losses. Toward the close, Live Cattle futures were an average of $2.34 higher. Feeder Cattle futures were an average of $5.36 higher. Negotiated cash fed cattle trade was inactive on light demand in all cattle feeding regions [...]

Anthony clarifies a take from last night about that game, then addresses a trend he's noticed from national media types who've been talking about Austin Reaves' recent play. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices