The world of ride-sharing startups is ripe with investment failures, technical failures and even some outright fraud, but one thing is certain: Uber is still the king of them all, controlling a vast majority of the ride-sharing market out there, with 8 million users, hundreds of thousands of drivers and about a million rides each day.

Many other Uber “clones” or competitors popped up over the years, with virtually all of them offering the same service model, where drivers go through an application process to qualify, their vehicles are inspected, a background check is performed and eventually they are allowed to use a mobile app to get customers while paying 20-30% of the amount of fares back to the company.  Customers almost always pay via a credit card and depending on the market, time of day and other factors, Uber or the other ride-sharing companies keep a good percentage of the fare cost.

Many drivers absolutely hate this model, and here is why: it’s completely centralized.  Drivers and riders have no control on any of the ride sharing aspects of the transaction.  Uber decides what rider is paired up with a driver. Uber decides the payment method, the amount and the fees associated with it.  Worse, Uber will not even allow drivers to operate if they drive older vehicles or specific makes and models.

Cell 411 Inc., a small startup focused on user safety and emergency management wants to change this.  In the latest Version 5 of their platform and mobile app, they introduced a fully decentralized ride-sharing option.  What does this mean?  Well, it means that their ride-sharing model is the exact opposite of how Uber and Uber-like companies do things.  There are no background checks, no requirements to drive certain year car or model.  There are no fees, and no centralized controls on pricing and methods of payment.  Literally, the users are in full control of all aspects of ride sharing.

Users willing to offer rides using Cell 411 even have full control on the pricing formula.  Drivers can edit their own pickup cost, per-minute and per-mile costs before providing a final cost to riders, thus employing a bid-like system where drivers compete for rides from various users, giving users options and encouraging competition.

With about 64,000 world-wide users on their platform, Cell 411’s user base is tiny in comparison to Uber, but their revolutionary, one of a kind model can become a real threat to Uber’s dominance.  With no “how do I apply to drive for you” questions to be answered, drivers are flocking to Cell 411 trying to avoid losing 20-30% of their fares to a central authority.  Not only that, but drivers are able to accept any payment method they wish.  There are payment methods like Cash, Silver, Cryptocurrency (like Bitcoin), Credit Cards and even Bartering.  Yes, with this model you can literally offer someone a ride in exchange for a burger or a joint!

With version 5 of their app just released days ago, the company is planning a launch party in Austin, TX on November 5, where they will answer any questions related to their future plans and how they are planning to integrate their safety and emergency response workflow with the new ride-sharing feature.

This fully decentralized ride sharing model has not been tested before because nobody else has tried it until now, but the company says that users from all over the world have reached out showing interest in participating and joining the platform.

“Most users send us messages asking, ‘Where do I apply to drive with you’ showing that many people still have a hard time coping with the full freedom they have on our platform,” said Virgil Vaduva, founder of Cell 411.  “When the answer is ‘just install the app,’ it is really incredible to see how users respond when they realize that they have the freedom they don’t have with Uber,” said Vaduva.

To increase user safety and maintain accountability, the app verifies users’ mobile phone numbers via a simple process and employs a user-review process which encourages good quality service.  The app also allows users to build mutual-aid networks allowing users to use their network of friends and family members to respond in case of emergencies and if dangerous situations occur.

Drivers also have the option to purchase a hardware bluetooth panic button which will alert nearby drivers when dangerous situations occur.

“Our users’ safety is obviously our top priority, but we also choose to treat all our users as responsible adults.  No, we will not give you a $500 sign-on bonus, we will not buy you car insurance, and we will not micro-manage your lives,” said Vaduva. “Many Uber drivers lose hundreds, if not thousands of dollars a month to Uber.  Why not take a small portion of that money and purchase the insurance you wish?  Why not buy a panic button for $20 and alert your mutual-aid driver network if you get a flat tire or need help?  Everything we’ve done puts our users back in control; there is a reason Uber lost $1.2 billion in the first half of 2016…they are a mammoth, central authority and they do not understand that the market wants freedom, not control,” Vaduva said.

Whether or not this decentralized ride-sharing experiment will be a success is to be seen, but it appears that this model is the future of ride sharing; Uber may have to get creative in order to compete in the marketplace and survive in the long run.

Cell 411 can be downloaded from http://getcell411.com

The European Commission is proposing the creation of a database that will hold information on those using virtual currencies and that will record data on the users’ real-world identity, along with all associated wallet addresses. This is under the guise of “fighting terrorism.”

This is the first proposal part of an action plan that the EU got rolling after the Paris November 2015 terror attacks and that it officially put forward in February 2016 and later approved at the start of July 2016.

As we wrote in our article from a few weeks back, the action plan, a reform of the Anti-Money Laundering Directive (AMLD) so it would also include the terms “virtual currency,” was only approved by the (EU President) Juncker Commission.

New AMLD will end anonymous Bitcoin transactions in the EU

This action plan is now making its way through the rest of the EU regulatory body, with the European Commission now in charge of putting the reformed AMLD to paper. As expected, the first draft of the AMLD now includes mentions to virtual currencies.

Besides recognizing crypto-currencies as another form of money, the draft also includes a set of regulations that would provide FIUs (financial intelligence units) with the tools needed to keep track of digital currencies, in the same way they do with fiat currencies.

To combat money laundering via digital currencies, EU officials plan to create a database that links Bitcoin and other crypto-currency addresses with real-world individuals, essentially putting an end to the anonymity that accompanies such payments.

FIUs across member states will have the power to create and then manage such databases, but users will also be allowed to register on their own, as a sign of good faith. The current AMLD draft reads:

The report shall be accompanied, if necessary, by appropriate proposals, including, where appropriate, with respect to virtual currencies, empowerments to set-up and maintain a central database registering users’ identities and wallet addresses accessible to FIUs, as well as self-declaration forms for the use of virtual currency users.

As mentioned when ministers from various countries met in Brussels last year, the EU is interested in regulating Bitcoin and similar currencies so that it would be harder for terrorists and cyber-criminal groups to use the currency to hide their operations and move large sums of money across borders.

Digital currency exchanges and wallet providers operating in Europe will most likely have to abide by the reformed AMLD and force EU users to register with their real information so that FIUs could track down individuals behind suspicious operations.

Bitcoin is regularly used for ransomware payments, in human trafficking (slavery, prostitution rings), kidnappings, extortions, hacking tools, and all sorts of illegal services and products.

Initial estimations have the reformed AMLD reaching the European Parliament for a final vote later in the year.

by Virgil Vaduva

Xenia is a small city in Ohio, peppered with foot-deep potholes, abandoned buildings with a high unemployment rate and very busy bureaucrats. Just a few months ago, the city’s council decided to spend $6 million on a new “Justice Center” and the cost is expected to balloon well into the $20+ million range. The city is in dire need of infrastructure upgrades, road repairs and sewage system improvements, but a new police station and a new office building for the city’s employees became critical.

But these are not even the worst things about the city of Xenia.  A few years ago, Xenia also decided to ban the practice of panhandling. At the request of the police department and cops who were “too tired” of dealing with homeless people on the street, the city decided to pass an ordinance that banned panhandling virtually anywhere in the city, making it impossible for anyone to ask another individual for financial help, anywhere in the city. In essence, the city has made it illegal for someone to speak with a stranger if the speech involves asking for immediate help.

Many individuals have been fined and prosecuted under this unconstitutional ordinance, raking in thousands of dollars of fines extracted from the most vulnerable and poor people on the streets.

A bit over a year ago I decided to speak to the Xenia City Council and warn them about the fact that their ordinance is unconstitutional. They ignored my warning, and as a result the very next day I decided to take the path of civil disobedience and panhandle in front of the city hall and police station. I raised $41.98 which was donated to United Voluntary Service, a charity helping the homeless in Xenia. I was also ticketed for violating this unconstitutional law, which led to a full-blown jury trial after which I was found guilty, sentenced to 30 days in jail, community service and fines. The jail sentence was suspended on the condition of good behavior for a term of 2 years. During the trial I was not allowed to talk about the constitutionality of the law and my first amendment rights, I was not allowed to even mention the constitution, or the fact that the police in town were behind the passing of this ordinance. A judge literally told me, “there will be no mentioning of the Constitution in this court room.”

After immediately appealing, the appeals court finally reversed my sentence and they sent the case back to the court to be retried. All the charges were dropped a few days ago, and the city’s attorney said they will change the ordinance or get rid of it. Right now it’s unclear what this means.

After about a year and a half, the swift hand of the judicial system finally found me innocent of any wrongdoing spending tens of thousands of dollars of the city’s money and my own money, hundreds of hours going into my defense and substantial effort aimed to win and undo the work of the Xenia bureaucrats. What took them only a few minutes to ratify with the stroke of a pen, caused hundreds, if not thousands of people to be harassed, arrested and fined by their cops. None of the cops and Xenia bureaucrats involved in this will ever be held personally responsible for their decisions, and while I am fortunate enough to afford the legal fees to pursue such a case just for the immoral and unconstitutional aspect of their law, most people cannot do so and rarely, if ever anyone speaks on their behalf or stands up for them.

Now while this may be a win for me personally, the issue is nowhere near close to being resolved. The hundreds of people who have had their first amendment rights violated will need retribution. I am in the process of collecting all the names of the individuals detained or fined under this law and bring this issue to the attention of federal courts.

To make matters worse, the city of Beavercreek, which is next door to Xenia, has an ordinance identical to the one in Xenia, also banning panhandling everywhere within city limits. More and more local bureaucrats decide on a regular basis and in a systematic way to violate the constitutional rights of people in need who are unable to represent themselves in court. Beavercreek is the same city where a police officer shot a black man named John Crawford in a local Walmart for holding a BB gun he picked off a store shelf.

Beavercreek will be our next target for their unconstitutional and illegal practices regarding panhandling, and there will be no rest for the corrupt and immoral politicians and cops running these cities and violating our rights. Yesterday I “panhandled” for charity in Beavercreek and I was given a “warning” from their police and asked not to do it again in the future. I raised $18 dollars which will also be donated to United Voluntary Services to help the homeless in the area.

Officers Hall and Darkow (the second officer involved in the shooting of John Crawford) of Beavecreek PD showed up and threatened, attempted to intimidate me and warned me about standing on a street corner with a cardboard sign that said, “Help the poor.”  In today’s America, this is now a crime.

Officer Darkow was the backup officer involved in the shooting and killing of John Crawford in a Beavercreek Walmart. He is currently being sued by the Crawford family.

Officer hall attempting to give me a written warning about panhandling in the city of Beavercreek and threatening me with arrest if I continue to peacefully raise money for charity

Officer hall attempting to give me a written warning about panhandling in the city of Beavercreek and threatening me with arrest if I continue to peacefully raise money for charity

The officers refused to answer questions about the constitutionality of the law and why they are violating their oaths to the Constitution by enforcing a law targeting Americans’ first amendment rights.

The same individuals who have sworn an oath to obey and protect the Constitution are actively using their roles to undermine the very document and rights they were entrusted to protect.

If you have been one of the hundreds of people harassed, arrested or fined by the Xenia and Beavercreek police for panhandling, please contact me as soon as possible at [email protected] so I can help you out. I want to hear your story.

Virgil Vaduva is a Libertarian security professional, journalist, photographer and overall liberty freak. He spent most of his life in Communist Romania and participated in the 1989 street protests which led to the collapse of the Ceausescu regime. He can be reached at vvaduva at truthvoice.com.

In the wake of tragedies such as the shooting in Orlando this week, the conversation turns to how society should address gun crime.  As the people of the United States recover from their shock, both sides will roll out their standard arguments: Ban specific firearms, increase concealed carry, a more watchful State.  These arguments will continue, and I agree with the authoritarians that something must be done.  However, I wish to take a different path with this argument; to envision how a free society would address gun crime.  For those interested in applying policy within the current system, I will attempt to show here that the answer is fewer laws, not more.

While each state in the US is different, all states depend as their primary line of defense on prohibitions against violence.  Punishment of violent offenders gives some closure to victims and serves to deter would-be offenders.  However, it is not always possible to punish people commensurate with the harm they cause.  Both sides of the debate agree on this problem, but offer differing proposals on how to solve this issue, usually in the form of additional legislation.

In a free society, we imagine the case of someone who purchases a weapon and goes on to misuse it, harming or killing others.  In this instance, defense agencies would take the person into custody.  After the requisite hearings, the sentence would be carried out.  On occasion, the guilty party would be able to repay his or her victims, but we must also consider the occasion where they could not.  The defense agencies would then expand the scope of their recourse.  In a free society, there would be nothing to prevent them from holding the weapons dealer responsible.

In an extreme example, someone purchases a shoulder-fired missile from a dealer and shoots down a passenger aircraft with it.  At list price, a Boeing 787 costs $265 million.  Each of the families of the victims will demand compensation, and clearing away the rubble isn’t free.  By the time everything is tallied, the damage could exceed $1 billion.  Considering that very few people have that kind of cash, life in prison or even the death penalty isn’t going to squeeze it out of them.

In the free society, the defense agencies go after the dealer because his product caused damage which they can’t recoup from the offender.   If the dealer’s assets aren’t sufficient, they go after the manufacturer, or even their suppliers.  Seeing this, other weapons dealers are faced with tremendous risk if their customers misuse their products.  So they do what is natural and they pay someone to manage this risk for them.  In fact, they don’t sell to a customer unless that customer pays to manage the risk by buying insurance.

The first thing we notice is that the amount is not equal for all weapons because the risk is not the same. The premium would vary based on the damage the weapon could cause and the likelihood it would be used in a crime. A Hi-Point might enter the market at $150, but carry a $500 insurance premium because of the probability it would be used to hurt people.  Likewise, the aforementioned MANPADS might retail for $25,000, but the risk to civilian aircraft might push the actual cost over $1 million.  The effect is to price out people who would be least likely to use the weapon responsibly.

The second thing we notice is that dealers who sell lots of problem guns have lots of claims, which makes it difficult and expensive to secure coverage. This addresses the “bad apple dealer” problem.

The third observation we make is that not all people pay the same for coverage.  Just as auto insurance rates males under 25 differently, it is a safe bet that insurers will be keenly aware of the demographics of mass shootings.  Likewise, insurers may insist on a background check before deciding the risk a person poses.

Having dealt with the abstractions of the free market, we ask what such a solution would look like in the society of today.  My proposal would consist of several legislative changes:

• Repeal of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act
• Removal of liability limits granted by incorporation (ideally for all corporations)

The former removes specific protections granted to the gun industry, while the latter removes the ability of a dealer or manufacturer to hide behind a corporation.

I don’t envision this as a perfect solution, but one that greatly reduces the risk posed by firearms without creating lists that worry conservatives or creating yet another contraband law.  Most of all, it reminds us that the best solutions lie not in restriction, but in freedom.

Andrew Slanker is a voluntaryist, engineer, and husband.  His hobbies include economics, camping and travel.

By: Deric Lostutter

The Philippines election is at hand and corruption is taking over.

The Philippines has a long history of political corruption.

Gloria Arroyo, a former Philippines president, even openly admitted to rigging the voting machines to win, using a method called “dag-dag bawas“, and nothing was done about it.

After ousting Ferdinand Marcos, Corazon Aquinos of the Liberal Party was placed in office in the late 1980’s and eventually led a bloody legacy of killing 13 farmers and protesters in the Mendiola Massacre.

Mar Roxas of the Liberal Party is campaigning for presidency and using bribes, extortion, and censorship to do it.

“-They were distributing money behind the stage, away from the cameras (as one guy admitted, he got a t-shirt and 50 pesos, on top of the packed meal, 2 ballers, slippers, fan, and picture of Mar that were given to the attendees)”

Rodrigo Duterte is the representitive of PDP-Laban, or, Partido Demokratiko Pilipino-Lakas ng Bayan, which means basically Demecratic Filipino party, Strength of the Nation, and is the new hope of the Filipino people against the Liberal Party who has been in positions of power including the presidency since the 1980’s after the fall of dictator, Ferdinand Marcos.

Duterte has been a mayor of the city of Davo for almost 22 years and the crime rate under his mayorship has significantly dropped as he managed to weed out the corruption in the city.

In Camiguin city, they have banned any political posters that are not pro Mar Roxas’, and the local government cut power to a building that housed an opposing rally.

Citizens of the Philipines reached out to TruthVoice in a pleading to get international coverage about the oppression and censorship that is occuring in their country, impoverishing thousands.

One citizen, Angel, tells TruthVoice that Mar Roxas comissioned rented jeeps and trucks, to “round people up from the fringes of the city (Rogongon, Digkilaan, etc.)” forcing them to attend a pro Roxas rally or they would take down their name and threaten to take away their 4ps (government assistance).

Unbeknownst to most of the impoverished citizens, Roxas does not have the power to take away their government assistance.

Angel went on to state that protesters received bribes, and clothing if they vote for Roxas.

Roxas’ party erroneously tweeted that 10,000 people, (who were extorted to attend), attended his rally at Illigan City Plaza, which can only hold a maximum of 1000 people, elbow to elbow.

Angel went on to state that “a lot of people went because they were (falsely) told Kathniel (a famous T.V. couple) would be there.”

When asking Angel what she wanted to say to the rest of the world, she replied:

“All I wants is an honest to god chance at an honest election for once, and I, like a lot of the Filipino people believe this may be our only shot at real change.”

Another resident alien, who is actually still a United States citizen spoke to TruthVoice about the police corruption in the area.

-Right now in the Philippines, it is not uncommon for a police officer to stop you for nothing and tell you if you do not pay them they will find something to fine you for, for a lot more money. I have had this happen to me personally, and who do you turn to? The police? They are the ones doing it, lol. “

When asking the U.S. citizen what he would want to tell the world, he replied:

“Most people won’t care because “Oh, who cares it’s just some third world country” but it is more than that, it is a third world country trying to make themselves better, but being held down by the neck, by people who are profiting by it being beaten down.

I would ask that the world watches, and gets as angry about it as I am, then maybe something can be done when people are oppressed like this action can be taken.”

A shopkeeper in the same area confirmed that merchandise was ordered for her store, and the Philippines Customs agents seized her shipment, trying to extort her for 3 times what the shipment was worth to obtain it, or they would keep it. Luckily for the shopkeeper, she knew someone in Customs, and the package was cleared.

“-In the Philippines it is all about who you know.”

By Virgil Vaduva

Bitcoin and technology media is in a feeding frenzy over the revelations from Wired Magazine and Gizmodo about the latest news: Satoshi Nakamoto has been identified! And his name is Craig Steven Wright, an Australian man living in a modest Sidney home, who has a lot of “big computer equipment” in his basement, needing a lot of electricity.

In what appears to be an elaborate hoax played on the media, an unknown individual (or a group of individuals ), likely Craig Wright himself, managed to disseminate just enough circumstantial evidence in order to motivate an eager journalist to determine that he, namely Craig Wright, is Satoshi Nakamoto, the original creator of Bitcoin.

Virtually all of Wired Magazine’s original article is in essence concluding that Wright is Satoshi based on blog post time stamps dating as far back as 2008, supposed leaked e-mail messages and transcripts of conversations between Wright and New South Wales government employees. The Gizmodo article also attempts to use the same evidence to reach similar conclusions. The irony in all these explosive revelations is that all authors involved in the writing of the Wired and Gizmodo articles are going out of their way to not repeat the mistakes of the Newsweek 2014 article which erroneously outed an innocent bystander named Dorian Nakamoto as the creator of Bitcoin. They are using words like “probably” and even include an unambiguous disclaimer in the piece, stating,

Despite that overwhelming collection of clues, none of it fully proves that Wright is Nakamoto.

In October 2014, Dorian Nakamoto announced that he intended to sue Newsweek, and months after taking relentless mocking and heat from the general public, Newsweek appears to have moved the original piece on Nakamoto behind a paywall that ignores the “5 Free Articles” limit extended to non-subscribers. Having learned from Newsweek’s mistakes, perhaps Wired and Gizmodo are simply trying to have it both ways: create a massive amount of publicity and traffic, and be able to walk away from a highly controversial story saying that they never claimed with certainty that Wright is Satoshi .

Here is why I believe that Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto:

1. Time stamps on blog posts can be easily faked. A blog post’s date and time can easily be written today and made to look as if it was written in 2008.
2. Any documents claimed to be “leaked” coming from anonymous sources can also be faked and manipulated. This includes audio recordings, transcripts and supposed e-mail messages.
3. Wired’s claim that e-mail addresses used by Craig Wright are “very similar” to e-mail addresses used by Satoshi Nakamoto is just journalistic hyperbole and cannot be used to prove that Wright is Satoshi .
4. The claims that PGP keys used by Wright and Satoshi are “linked to the creation of Bitcoin” also lack any substance.  A PGP signature can offer concrete evidence of authorship, or verification that the person possessing the private key used to sign a specific file or e-mail message is in fact the true person behind the messages. Wright has not provided any such evidence, and this evidence should be easily provided. He could simply make a public post stating that he is Satoshi Nakamoto and sign that post with Satoshi’s original PGP key, which he has never use and can be found here: http://forum.bitcoin.org/Satoshi_Nakamoto.asc
5. Satoshi Nakamoto has never shown the desire to be a media hog or a public person, while Wright has. Satoshi has always shown the desire to be private and live in the shadows; Wright has not.
6. Wright is still mining Bitcoin. According to the Sidney police who have raided Wright’s home shortly after the Wired article was published, there was a substantial amount of equipment in Wright’s home, most likely used for Bitcoin mining. According to the landlord, Wright had a three phase, high amperage circuit pulled into the building, also indicating that a mining operation is ongoing. It is extremely unlikely that Satoshi would have a need to mine bitcoin as he mined the original genesis blocks. These bitcoin have never moved on the Blockchain since they were originally mined in January 2009. It is generally accepted that Satoshi has a ton of Bitcoin already, about 1 million of them. He would not spend valuable time and resources on mining activity that is no longer very profitable.
7. Wright is in trouble with the government of New South Wales. While this does not prove much, we can speculate that this may be a ploy by Craig Wright to create publicity to advertise his business enterprises, one of which is a “Bitcoin bank” called DeMorgan LTD, a “pre-IPO” company which would greatly benefit financially from the suggestion that its founder and majority owner is Satoshi himself. Not coincidentally, the price of Bitcoin has gone up substantially since Wright’s claims were publicized.

It appears to be quite evident that Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto. Until Wright provides some solid cryptographic evidence that he is Satoshi, Wired and Gizmodo should stick to celebrity boob-job news and try to resist the temptation to write sensational news which do not really benefit the Bitcoin community. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And the claims that Wright is Satoshi are very poor, at best.

Virgil Vaduva is a Libertarian security professional, journalist, photographer and overall liberty freak. He spent most of his life in Communist Romania and participated in the 1989 street protests which led to the collapse of the Ceausescu regime. He can be reached at vvaduva at truthvoice.com.

By Russell Mills for krmg.com

The damage spans the globe.

Thailand’s baht. Kazakhstan’s tenge. South Africa’s rand. Peru’s nuevo sol.

In emerging markets worldwide, currencies are plunging over fears that developing economies are on the verge of a crippling fall. Success stories until recently, emerging economies are seen as casualties now — of slower growth in China, plunging prices for commodities like oil and iron ore, the prospect of higher U.S. interest rates and homegrown threats.

The damage has spilled across oceans, with the turmoil jolting investors in New York, Tokyo and Europe. Investors there worry that China and other major emerging economies will reduce their imports. They also fear a trade-disrupting currency war as some countries desperately lower their currencies’ value to gain a competitive edge. A lower-priced currency makes a country’s goods cheaper for foreigners.

The Dow Jones industrials plunged 400 points, or 2.4 percent, in afternoon trading Friday on top of a 358-point drop Thursday. It’s down more than 6.5 percent in the past month. Tokyo’s Nikkei index shed 3 percent Friday.

For all the markets’ jitters, many economists say they remain confident that the U.S. economy is resilient enough to withstand a slowdown in the developing world. And Europe’s economy appears to be emerging from its long slump.

Even so, the trouble in emerging markets is a surprising and unsettling reversal.

“It’s remarkable just how things turned around so quickly,” says Neil Shearing, an economist at Capital Economics and a former British Treasury official.

Consider Peru. Three years ago, its capital, Lima, was chosen to host an International Monetary Fund’s meeting of global finance officials in what was seen as a celebration of Latin America’s arrival in the economic big leagues.

But with the event six weeks away, Latin America’s outlook has descended from boom to gloom. Peru’s economy has steadily slowed, and its currency, the nuevo sol, has plunged 2.5 percent against the U.S. dollar in the past month.

And Peru boasts one of the region’s healthiest economies. Brazil’s economy is expected to shrink this year and next. Its currency, the real, is down 7 percent the past month and more than 30 percent the past two years.

It’s hardly just Latin America. Kazakhstan’s currency plummeted this week after the government decided to let it trade freely. The South African rand fell this week to a 14-year-low against the U.S. dollar. Turkey’s lira hit a record low against the dollar this week.

Hung Tran, an executive managing director at the Institute of International Finance, expects developing countries to post 3.8 percent economic growth this year, down from 4.3 percent in 2014. The institute is on the verge of cutting that forecast further.

Analysts point to a primary culprit:

“It’s all coming from China,” says Masamichi Adachi, an economist with JP Morgan Chase in Tokyo. “Brazil, South Africa, many countries are commodity exporters, and the final destination is all going to China.”

The Chinese economy is slowing more sharply than most people had expected from the double-digit growth rates of the mid-2000s. The world’s second-biggest economy is expected to grow 7 percent this year, which would be its slowest pace since 1990.

Beijing is trying to manage a transition from rapid growth based on exports and often-wasteful spending on factories, real estate and infrastructure to slower, steadier expansion based on consumer spending.

That transition means China would need fewer raw materials — Chilean copper, Nigerian oil, Brazilian iron ore. That helps explain why China’s pullback has loosed carnage in global commodity prices: The Standard & Poor’s GSCI commodity index, which tracks 24 commodities prices, is down nearly 20 percent this year.

Emerging markets were already feeling the squeeze last week, when China devalued its currency, the yuan. That step ignited a semi-panic.

“The devaluation is a red flag about China’s current economic situation,” says Kurt Braybrook, who runs a Shanghai company that does quality control work. A falling yuan raises the risk that other countries will devalue their currencies to catch up.

Most countries can’t blame China and the vagaries of the global commodities market for all their problems.

South Africa is battling labor strife. Brazil is contending with a corruption scandal at state-owned oil giant Petrobras. Turkey is struggling to form a government while its military battles the Islamic State extremist group and Kurdish separatists.

Adding to the pressure: America’s Federal Reserve is expected, perhaps at its September meeting, to raise the short-term rate it controls from near zero. Investors could respond by moving even more money out of emerging markets to seek higher U.S. rates. That would lift the dollar higher and emerging market currencies even lower.

A Fed rate hike could also squeeze emerging market companies that have borrowed in U.S. dollars. Those companies would struggle to accumulate enough local currency to pay their now-more-expensive dollar-denominated debt.

Tran at the Institute for International Finance says dollar borrowing by emerging market companies surged from $700 billion in 2010 to $2 trillion through March.

The rising dollar and the hoard of dollar loans recall the 1997-1998 Asian financial crisis. Back then, a currency sell-off triggered an emerging market debt crisis that became a disaster for countries such as Indonesia and South Korea.

But the picture is less alarming now, analysts say. For one thing, developing countries have stockpiled foreign reserves that they can use to buy their own currencies and stop a crisis.

What’s more, emerging market companies that borrowed in dollars in recent years tended to take out longer-term loans, notes Joaquin Cottani, Standard & Poor’s chief economist for Latin America. During the ’97-’98 crisis, companies had taken out short-term loans and couldn’t refinance when the loans came due during a panic.

“Countries have learned from their experiences,” says Monica de Bolle, visiting fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

In June, the Coalition For Public Safety, a bipartisan group consisting of Center For American Progress (CAP), Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), FreedomWorks, The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the Faith and Freedom Coalition, announced their Fair Sentencing & Fair Chances campaign, which aims to reduce recidivism rates, the prison population, the cost of incarceration, and reforming the socioeconomic barriers that often make convicts transitioning back into society almost impossible.

In a statement, Executive Director Christine Leonard said, “When the U.S. makes up only five percent of the global population, but represents 25 percent of the world’s prison population, it’s clear that our criminal justice system isn’t working.”

“We have too many prisoners, our facilities are well beyond capacity, it’s costing taxpayers $80 billion per year, and current policies create significant human costs to families and communities across the nation as those caught up in the system continue to struggle to turn their lives around and avoid re-entering the system,” she added.

Some states have already begun reforming their systems to address these issues.

“Several states, including Texas and Georgia, have proved that reform works through declining prison populations, cost-savings, and reduced crime and recidivism rates,” said Freedomworks’ Jason Pye.

Tim Head, Executive Director for the Faith and Freedom Coalition, touched upon how mass incarceration is effecting the social fabric of the country, and how reducing rates of recidivism–and the policies that exacerbate that problem–keep families divided.

“The time has come for bipartisan sentencing and prison reform that better protects our communities and better prepares returning offenders to be parents, spouses and employees. Through modest, incremental changes, we can make criminal punishments better match the crime, give people who have paid their debt to society a second chance, and reduce the costs of the state and federal prison systems,” he said.

Concerning being tough on crime and serving the interests of public safety, ATR’s Grover Norquist said “The cost of keeping people in prison has grown right along with the number of people being kept behind bars. The disappointing fact is that none of this has not always made us any safer.”

On July 14, Coalition for Public Safety hosted a discussion with Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), John Cornyn (R-TX), Cory Booker (D-NJ), and Mike Lee (R-UT) on the need for criminal justice reform in the Kennedy Caucus Room in the Russell Senate Office Building. The panel was moderated by former executive editor of The New York Times Bill Keller, now editor-in-chief of The Marshall Project–a nonpartisan news outlet that specializes in news related to criminal justice–who wanted each lawmaker to lay out a pitch for criminal justice reform, and why it’s needed. Every senator touched upon the points raised by the Coalition’s members.

Sen. Cornyn started the conversation by saying whether we like it or not, the issues surrounding our criminal justice system effects us all because these people who we’ve locked up will be released back into society; most of the people we have in prison are nonviolent offenders. He proudly mentioned how Texas was known for being tough on crime, but then became “smart” on crime around 2006-07.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) touched upon how over-sentencing has staggering economic and moral costs.

“With as many people as we incarcerate sometimes for decades at a time, we need to consider the impact this has on the American family, and on communities throughout America who are missing sons, and fathers – nephews and uncles – members of the community who could be playing a meaningful role,” said Lee.

As a former federal prosecutor, Lee mentioned how federal judges know the sentences they have to hand out are unjust. He distinctly remembers many judges saying the following upon sentencing:

“This sentence that I’m about to impose is one that I’m required by federal law to impose. It is excessive; it is plainly excessive in proportion to the conduct involved in this offense. Nonetheless, this a determination for Congress, not for me, my hands are tied. I hope Congress will change something.”

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse said that for all of our criminal justice system’s ills, it’s virtually the envy of the world. As a result, we have an obligation to improve it, to keep making strides in making it the best way to dispense justice.

He also touched upon the bipartisan nature of this issue, noting that Rhode Island and Texas are as far apart in terms of size and political disposition, but as lawmakers they were still able to come together.

Sen. Booker aptly noted “If you’re a fiscal conservative, dear God; this is your issue.” He took a more data-focused approach to his pitch, going down the list where every person from every political stripe would find some area of agreement.

He mentioned our criminal justice system has seen an explosion in government spending on the federal level amounting to an 800 percent increase. That, in turn, siphons funds away from basic government programs, infrastructure funding, and education, though some of those areas are also in drastic need of reform, especially in how our schools are run. Nevertheless, Booker had the rather disturbing statistic that we were building a new prison every ten days between 1995-2006.

Regarding child welfare, Booker noted that we have an inordinate number of children suffering due to our incarceration rates. Concerning the economy and GDP growth, the U.S. has lost of tens of billions of dollars in economic productivity.

Regarding limited government, mandatory minimum sentencing is–as Sen. Lee pointed out–a gross intrusion of the federal government into the courtroom. With a prison population that’s risen 700 percent, our current system has become ruinously expensive.

Sens. Cornyn, Whitehouse, and Lee mentioned their pieces of legislation are aimed at reducing costs.

The Cornyn-Whitehouse bill introduced in February–officially called the Corrections Oversight, Recidivism Reduction, and Eliminating Costs for Taxpayers in Our National System (CORRECTIONS) Act­–tackles prison reform (via The Hill):

The law is meant to reduce the number of people — currently just over 210,000 — incarcerated in federal prisons.The package proposed by the two senators takes a more moderate approach to reducing prison populations than other proposals that would implement reductions to mandatory sentences.

It also supports programs that help prisoners avoid returning to crime after being released.

Prisoners would undergo a risk assessment to determine whether they present a low, medium or high risk of committing another offense.

Prisoners determined to have a low or medium risk of offending again would be eligible to earn time off of their sentences by participating in recidivism reduction programs, including drug counseling or vocational training, a release from Whitehouse’s office said.

In total, prisoners can earn 25 percent of their sentence off through the law.

The bill, though, prevents certain types of prisoners, like those serving time for sex offenses or terrorism, from benefiting from the law.

Sens. Patrick Leahy and Lee also put forward a piece of legislation in February that addresses the inequities within mandatory minimum sentencing, and reduces the time to be served for nonviolent drug offenses. It doesn’t eliminate mandatory minimums, but Lee described it as a good first step. This is also part of his reform agenda, which began in 2013 when the senator decided to get serious about policy.

Lee is particularly proud of his work with Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin on criminal-justice reform. In February, the pair introduced the Smarter Sentencing Act, which seeks to rationalize federal sentencing for drug offenders. “This is very much a reaching-across-the-aisle exercise,” Lee tells me, pointing to cosponsors ranging from Al Franken to Cory Booker to Rubio to Cruz. Even the president is on board, he beams. “I went over to the White House a few weeks ago for a meeting about criminal-justice reform,” he says, “and the president spoke at length about how much he liked my bill.”

About 35 minutes into the discussion all four senators noted that they had votes to cast, probably on amendments regarding the Every Child Achieves Act. Yet, the panel did touch upon another area that needs reform: civil asset forfeiture.

Lee virtually described how the system is a perversion of justice, where law enforcement can seize assets, including property, without proving beyond a reasonable doubt that such resources have been–or will be–used in a felonious act. It places the burden of proof on the accused, where the citizen whose assets have been taken is considered guilty and must prove his or her innocence.

The Coalition for Public Safety also has a 501(c)(4) project called fixforfeiture.org, which acknowledges that it has been used as a useful tool in fighting crime, but is also ripe for abuse.

“Asset forfeiture can be a critical tool for law enforcement to combat criminal activity,” said Senior Project Director Holly Harris in a statement. “But, it’s also a tool that can be abused, entangling innocent property owners with the costly and often bizarre task of having to prove their property “innocent” of criminal activity. And when the nation’s most well-respected conservative and progressive voices agree that a system is broken, it is time to get to work on a solution,” she added. Often times, those impacted by civil asset forfeiture do not have the legal fees or the time to get their property back. When Fix Forfeiture was launched in June, it said:

At the federal level, 80 percent of individuals from whom the government seized funds or property were never charged with a crime. Since 2001, more than 60,000 cash seizures were made by the federal government without search warrants or indictments, totaling more than $2.5 billion.Fix Forfeiture will begin its state work in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio, three states with year-long legislatures and interest in reform. In Michigan, House Speaker Kevin Cotter and House Judiciary Chair Klint Kesto are taking the lead, and a set of reform bills recently passed out of the Michigan House of Representatives by overwhelming bipartisan margins. In Pennsylvania, Senator Mike Folmer recently filed common-sense reform legislation, and momentum is building for companion legislation in the House. Ohio boasts pioneers in criminal justice reform work, and hope is high that civil asset forfeiture reform will be part of that conversation this legislative session.

In all, overcriminalization and civil asset forfeiture are the two issues that galvanize conservatives to join the cause of reform. At the same time, honoring the basic principles of fairness, along with the hideous costs, is what seems to unite both sides that seek to create a fairer criminal justice system together. Something has got to give. With nearly a third of the U.S. population with a criminal record, something has to be done regarding rehabilitation, reducing rates of incarceration, reducing (or eliminating) mandatory minimums on nonviolent offenses, and the ability to participate in obtaining GEDs and job training seem to constitute the consensus regarding how to tackle this issue on both sides.

Sen. Booker noted how one obstacle that threatens to poison the well is fear. Fear is pervasive among members of Congress. Fear of being viewed as soft of defense, crime, and immigration seem to be surefire ways to mobilize a primary challenge. The fear of being viewed as soft on crime is something that some lawmakers on the Hill will probably ponder during these discussions.

“Fear is a toxic state,” said Sen. Booker. But he’s not unfazed by it if it means bringing a sense of mercy, justice, and empowerment into these discussions.

By Matt Vespa for Townhall.com