 |
|
|
|||||
If you visit the Erie Canal today, youll find a tranquil waterway and trail that pass through charming towns and forests, a place where hikers, cyclists, kayakers, bird-watchers, and other visitors seek to enjoy nature and escape the pressures of modern life. However, relaxation and scenic beauty had nothing to do with the origins of this waterway. When the Erie Canal opened 200 years ago, on Oct. 26, 1825, the route was dotted with decaying trees left by construction that had cut through more than 360 miles of forests and fields, and life quickly sped up. Mules on the towpath along the canal could pull a heavy barge at a clip of 4 miles per hourfar faster than the job of dragging wagons over primitive roads. Boats rushed goods and people between the Great Lakes heartland and the port of New York City in days rather than weeks. Freight costs fell by 90%. As many books have proclaimed, the Erie Canals opening in 1825 solidified New Yorks reputation as the Empire State. It also transformed the surrounding environment and forever changed the ecology of the Hudson River and the lower Great Lakes. For environmental historians like me, the canals bicentennial provides an opportunity to reflect upon its complex legacies, including the evolution of U.S. efforts to balance economic progress and ecological costs. Human and natural communities ruptured The Haudenosaunee Confederacy, the Indigenous nations that the French called the Iroquois, engaged in canoe-based trade throughout the Great Lakes and Hudson River valley for centuries. In the 1700s, that began to change as American colonists took the land through brutal warfare, inequitable treaties, and exploitative policies. That Haudenosaunee dispossession made the Erie Canal possible. Haiwhagai’i Jake Edwards of the Onondaga Nation describes the Erie Canals impact on the people of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy. WMHT. After the Revolutionary War, commercial enthusiasm for a direct waterborne route to the West intensified. Canal supporters identified the break in the Appalachian Mountains at the junction of the Mohawk River and the Hudson as a propitious place to dig a channel to Lake Erie. Yet cutting a 363-mile-long waterway through New Yorks uneven terrain posed formidable challenges. Because the landscape rises 571 feet between Albany and Buffalo, a canal would require multiple locks to raise and lower boats. Federal officials refused to finance such internal improvements. But New York politician DeWitt Clinton was determined to complete the project, even if it meant using only state funds. Critics mocked the $7 million megaproject, worth around US$170 million today, calling it DeWitts Ditch and Clintons Folly. In 1817, however, thousands of men began digging the 4-foot-deep channel using hand shovels and pickaxes. The construction work produced engineering breakthroughs, such as hydraulic cement made from local materials and locks that lifted the canals water level about 60 feet at Lockport, yet it obliterated acres of wetlands and forests. After riding a canal boat between Utica and Syracuse, the writer Nathaniel Hawthorne described the surroundings in 1835 as now decayed and death-struck. However, most canalgoers viewed the waterway as a beacon of progress. As a trade artery, it made New York City the nations financial center. As a people mover, it fueled religious revivals, social reform movements, and the growth of Great Lakes cities. The Erie Canals socioeconomic benefits came with more environmental costs: The passageway enabled organisms from faraway places to reach lakes and rivers that had been isolated since the end of the last ice age. An invasive species expressway On Oct. 26, 1825, Gov. Clinton led a flotilla aboard the Seneca Chief from Buffalo to New York City that culminated in a grandiose ceremony. To symbolize the global connections made possible by the new canal, participants poured water from Lake Erie and rivers round the world into the Atlantic at Sandy Hook, a sand spit off New Jersey at the entrance to New York Harbor. Observers at the time described the ritual of commingling the waters of the Lakes with the Ocean in matrimonial terms. Clinton was an accomplished naturalist who had researched the canal routes geology, birds, and fish. He even predicted that the waterway would bring the western fishes into the eastern waters. Biologists today would consider the Wedding of the Waters event a biosecurity risk. The Erie Canal and its adjacent feeder rivers and reservoirs likely enabled two voracious nonnative species, the Atlantic sea lamprey and alewife, to enter the Great Lakes ecosystem. By preying on lake trout and other highly valued native fish, these invaders devastated the lakes commercial fisheries. The harvest dropped by a stunning 98% from the previous average by the early 1960s. Tracing their origins is tricky, but historical, ecological and genetic data suggest that sea lampreys and alewives entered Lake Ontario via the Erie Canal during the 1860s. Later improvements to the Welland Canal in Canada enabled them to reach the upper Great Lakes by the 1930s. Protecting the $5 billion Great Lakes fishery from these invasive organisms requires constant work and consistent funding. In particular, applying pesticides and other techniques to control lamprey populations costs around $20 million per year. The invasive species that has inflicted the most environmental and economic harm on the Great Lakes is the zebra mussel. Zebra mussels traveled from Eurasia via the ballast water of transoceanic ships using the St. Lawrence Seaway during the 1980s. The Erie Canal then became a mussel expressway to the Hudson River. The hungry invading mussels caused a nearly tenfold reduction of phytoplankton, the primary food of many species of the Hudson River ecosystem. This competition for food, along with pollution and habitat degradation, led to the disappearance of two common species of the Hudsons native pearly mussels. Today, the Erie Canal remains vulnerable to invasive plants, such as water chestnut and hydrilla, and invasive animals such as round goby. Boaters, kayakers and anglers can help reduce bioinvasions by cleaning, draining and drying their equipment after each use to avoid carrying invasive species to new locations. A recreational treasure During the Gilded Age in the late 1800s, the Erie Canal sparked a utilitarian sense of environmental concern. Timber cutting in the Adirondack Mountains was causing so much erosion that the eastern canals feeder rivers were filling up with silt. To protect these waterways, New York created Adirondack Park in 1892. Covering 6 million acres, the park balances forest preservation, recreation and commercial use on a unique mix of public and private lands. Erie Canal shipping declined during the 20th century with the opening of the deeper and wider St. Lawrence Seaway and competition from rail and highways. The canal still supports commerce, but the Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor now provides an additional economic engine. A kayak tour shows how locks operate on the Erie Canal. WMHT Public Media. In 2024, 3.84 million people used the Erie Canalway Trail for cycling, hiking, kayaking, sightseeing and other adventures. The tourists and day-trippers who enjoy the historic landscape generate over $300 million annually. Over the past 200 years, the Erie Canal has both shaped and been shaped by ecological forces and changing socioeconomic priorities. As New York reimagines the canal for its third century, the artificial rivers environmental history provides important insights for designing technological systems that respect human communities and work with nature rather than against it. Christine Keiner is the chair of the Department of Science, Technology, and Society at the Rochester Institue of Technology. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
Surveillance pricing has dominated headlines recently. Delta Air Lines announcement that it will use artificial intelligence to set individualized ticket prices has led to widespread concerns about companies using personal data to charge different prices for identical products. As The New York Times reported, this practice involves companies tracking everything from your hotel bookings to your browsing history to determine what youre willing to pay. The reaction has been swift. Democratic lawmakers have responded with outrage, with Texas Representative Greg Casar introducing legislation to ban the practice. Meanwhile, President Donald Trumps new chair of the Federal Trade Commission has shut down public comment on the issue, signaling that the regulatory pendulum may swing away from oversight entirely. Whats missing in this political back-and-forth is a deeper look at the economics. As a business school professor who researches pricing strategy, I think the debate misses important nuances. Opponents of surveillance pricing overlook some potential benefits that could make markets both more efficient and, counterintuitively, more equitable. What surveillance pricing actually is Surveillance pricing differs from traditional dynamic pricing, where prices rise for everyone at times of peak demand. Instead, it uses personal databrowsing history, location, purchase patterns, even device typeto charge a unique price based on what algorithms predict youre willing to pay. The goal is to discover each customers reservation pricethe most theyll pay before walking away. Until recently, this was extremely difficult to do, but modern data collection has made it increasingly feasible. An FTC investigation found that companies track highly personal consumer behaviors to set individualized prices. For example, a new parent searching for baby thermometers might find pricier products on the first page of their results than a nonparent would. Its not surprising that many people think this is unfair. The unintended progressive tax But consider this: Surveillance pricing also means that wealthy customers pay more for identical goods, while lower-income customers pay less. That means it could achieve redistribution goals typically pursued through government policy. Pharmaceutical companies already do this globally, charging wealthier countries more for identical drugs to make medications accessible in poorer nations. Surveillance pricing could function as a private-sector progressive tax system. Economists call it price discrimination, but it often helps poorer consumers access goods they might otherwise be unable to afford. And unlike government programs, this type of redistribution requires no taxpayer funding. When Amazons algorithm charges me more than a college student for the same laptop, its effectively running a means-tested subsidy programfunded by consumers. PBS NewsHour featured a segment on the Delta Air Lines news. The two-tier economy problem In my view, the most legitimate concern about surveillance pricing isnt that it exists, but how its implemented. Online retailers can seamlessly adjust prices in real time, while physical stores remain largely stuck with uniform pricing. Imagine the customer fury if Targets checkout prices varied by person based on their smartphone data: There could be chaos in the stores. This digital-physical divide could also create unfair advantages for tech-savvy companies while leaving traditional retailers behind. That would raise fairness considerations for consumers as well as retailers. This is related to another force that could limit how far surveillance pricing can go: arbitrage, or the practice of buying something where it is cheaper and selling it where it is more expensive. If a system consistently charges wealthy customers $500 for items that cost poor customers $200, it creates opportunities for entrepreneurial intermediaries to exploit these price gaps. Personal shopping services, buying cooperatives, or even friends and family networks could arbitrage these differences, providing wealthy customers access to the lower prices while splitting the savings. This means surveillance pricing cant discriminate too aggressivelymarket forces will erode excessive price gaps. Thats why I believe the solution isnt to ban surveillance pricing entirely, but to monitor how its put in practice. The regulatory sweet spot The current political moment offers a strange opportunity. With Republicans focused on AI innovation and Democrats fixated on bans, theres space for a more sophisticated position that embraces market-based redistribution while demanding strong consumer protections. In my view, smart regulation would require companies to disclose when personal data influences pricing, and would prohibit discrimination based on protected characteristics such as race, color, or religionand this list needs to be created extremely carefully. This would preserve the efficiency benefits while preventing abuse. Surveillance pricing based on desperation or need also raises unique ethical questions. Charging a wealthier customer more for a taxi ride is one thing; charging someone extra solely because their battery is low and they risk being stranded is another. As I see it, the distinction between ability to pay and urgency of need must become the cornerstone of regulation. While distinguishing the two may seem challenging, its far from impossible. It would help if customers were empowered to report exploitative practices, using mechanisms similar to existing price-gouging protections. A solid regulatory framework must also clarify the difference between dynamic pricing and surveillance-based exploitation. Dynamic pricing has long been standard practice: Airlines charge all last-minute travelers higher fares, regardless of their circumstances. But consider two passengers buying tickets on the same dayone rushing to a funeral, another planning a spontaneous vacation. Right now, airlines can use technology to identify and exploit the funeral attendees desperate circumstances. The policy challenge is precise: Can we design regulations that prevent airlines from exploiting the bereaved while still allowing retailers to offer discounts on laptops to lower-income families? The answer will determine whether surveillance pricing becomes a tool for equity or exploitation. Aradhna Krishna is a Dwight F. Benton professor of marketing at the University of Michigan. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
As economic uncertainty deepens, the rush for gold continueswith prices for the precious metal topping $4,300 for the first time this week. The going price for New York spot closed at a record $4,326 per troy ounce on Thursday. Futures also traded as high at more than $4,344 per troy ounce Thursday, before falling below the $4,300 mark Friday morning. Still, gold is up significantly over the last week, marking one of its best weeks to date. Gold sales can rise sharply when anxious investors seek a safe haven for their money. For the U.S., the latest gains arrive amid the now weekslong government shutdown and ongoing trade wars abroadwith President Donald Trump most recently threatening to place much higher tariffs on China, before appearing to walk back those potential new levies as unsustainable. Still, his barrage of other import taxes has already strained economies worldwide. Meanwhile, the prospect of lower interest rates is also making gold a more attractive investment. Why are gold prices going up? Gold futures are up nearly 60% since the start of 2025trading at about $4,268 per troy ounce, the standard for measuring precious metals, as of around 11:45 a.m. Friday. Thats up from around $2,670 at the beginning of January. Silver has seen an even bigger percentage jump year to date. Silver futures are up about 70%, trading at over $50 per troy ounce Friday morning. A lot of the rise boils down to uncertainty. Interest in buying metals like gold typically spikes when investors become anxious. Much of this year’s economic turmoil has spanned from Trumps trade wars. Since the start of 2025, steep new tariffs the president has imposed on goods coming into the U.S. from around the world have strained businesses and consumers alikepushing costs higher and helping to weaken the job market. As a result, hiring has plunged while inflation has inched back up. And more and more consumers are expressing pessimism about the road ahead. The U.S. government shutdown adds to those anxieties. Key economic data has been delayedand scores of federal employees are already feeling the effects of furloughs and working without pay as long as the shutdown lasts, which has no immediate end in sight. The Trump administration also moved to use the shutdown to conduct mass firings, although a judge temporarily blocked such action. Separately, analysts have pointed to continued weakness of the U.S. dollar and renewed rate cuts from the Federal Reserve. Last month, the Fed cut its key interest rate by a quarter-pointand projected it would do so twice more this year. Investments in gold have also been driven by other factors over time. Over recent years, there’s been strong gold demand from central banks around the worldparticularly amid heightened geopolitical tensions, such as the ongoing wars in Gaza and Ukraine. And on Wall Street this week, several regional banks saw sharp losses amid scrunity over quality of loans, although recovery seemed to be steadying the market on Friday. Meanwhile, investors appeared to be distancing themselves from riskier assets like cryptocurrencywith bitcoin, for example, down 2.67%. Will rising gold prices make jewelry more expensive? Many jewelry merchants and dealers have increasingly reported surges in customers looking to check the value of gold they ownsometimes opting to melt or sell family heirlooms to cash in on the precious metal’s rising price. At the same time, those in the market for gold jewelry may be feeling sticker shock if they cant afford certain products anymoreparticularly if it’s something impacted by both rising material costs and tariffs. Larger retailers like Pandora and Signet have acknowledged these headwinds in recent earnings calls. Is gold worth the investment? Advocates of investing in gold call it a safe havenarguing that the commodity can serve to diversify and balance your investment portfolio, as well as mitigate possible risks down the road as a hedge against rising inflation. Some also take comfort in buying something tangible that has the potential to increase in value over time. Still, experts caution against putting all your eggs in one basket. And not everyone agrees gold is a good investment. Critics say gold isnt always the inflation hedge many claimand that there are more efficient ways to protect against potential loss of capital, such as derivative-based investments. The Commodity Futures Trade Commission has also previously warned people to be wary of investing in gold. Precious metals can be highly volatile, and prices rise as demand goes upmeaning when economic anxiety or instability is high, the people who typically profit from precious metals are the sellers,” the commission noted. Gold demand escalates mercury poisoning warnings The frenzy for gold has also resulted in health and environmental consequences with officials pointing to riing demand for mercury, a toxic metal that is key in illegal gold mining worldwide. Mercury is widely used to separate gold during artisanal or small-scale mining. But it pollutes water, accumulates in fish, makes its way into food and builds up in peoples bodies, leading to neurological and developmental harm. Even small-scale exposure can carry serious risks putting in danger workers who rely on the industry, as well as residents in affected areas more broadly. The Associated Press has reported about the effects of mercury poisoning tied to gold mining in countries like Senegal, Mexico and Peru, among other parts of the world. By Wyatte Grantham-Philips, AP Business Writer
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||