Datasets:

xxazz

/

nq-corpus

like 0

700

Soon after Mark Foster formed Foster the People in 2009, he wrote and recorded "Pumped Up Kicks" in five hours while working as a commercial jingle writer at Mophonics in Los Angeles.[3][4] On the day of recording, Foster debated between songwriting in the studio and going to the beach. He explained: "I really didn't have anything to do that day. I was standing there in the studio, and this thought came in my mind like, 'I'm going to write a song,'... and then I was like, 'I don't feel like writing. I don't want to write a song.' I was a block away from the beach, and it was a beautiful day. I kind of just wanted to just be lazy and go hang out at the beach or whatever. But I just forced myself to write a song... By that time the next day, the song was finished."[5]

Pumped Up Kicks

701

Reflecting on the lack of inspiration he felt when writing the song, Foster said, "I've heard a lot of other artists talk about this as well, like, 'I'm not inspired right now. I've got writer's block. I'm just not really feeling anything.' And I've felt that way, too, just not being inspired and wanting to wait for inspiration to come before I wrote. But I wasn't inspired when I wrote 'Pumped Up Kicks,' and that's what came out. So... it just solidified the notion that perspiration is more powerful than inspiration."[5] Thinking that he was just recording a demo, he played all of the instruments on the song,[6] and using the software Logic Pro, he arranged and edited the song himself.[7] The demo is ultimately the version of the song that Foster released.[6]

Pumped Up Kicks

702

—Mark Foster[8]

Pumped Up Kicks

703

The lyrics to "Pumped Up Kicks" are written from the perspective of a troubled and delusional youth with homicidal thoughts.[6] The lines in the chorus warn potential victims to "outrun my gun" and that they "better run, better run, faster than my bullet." Foster said in a statement to CNN.com, "I wrote 'Pumped Up Kicks' when I began to read about the growing trend in teenage mental illness. I wanted to understand the psychology behind it because it was foreign to me. It was terrifying how mental illness among youth had skyrocketed in the last decade. I was scared to see where the pattern was headed if we didn't start changing the way we were bringing up the next generation."[9] In writing the song, Foster wanted to "get inside the head of an isolated, psychotic kid"[6] and "bring awareness" to the issue of gun violence among youth, which he feels is an epidemic perpetuated by "lack of family, lack of love, and isolation."[10][11] The song's title refers to shoes that the narrator's peers wear as a status symbol.[12][13]

Pumped Up Kicks

704

The issue of youth violence is a matter close to the group. Foster was bullied in high school, while bassist Cubbie Fink has a cousin who survived the Columbine High School massacre in 1999. Fink said of his cousin's experience, "She was actually in the library when everything went down, so I actually flew out to be with her the day after it happened and experienced the trauma surrounding it and saw how affected she was by it. She is as close as a sister, so obviously, it affected me deeply. So to be able to have a song to create a platform to talk about this stuff has been good for us."[8]

Pumped Up Kicks

705

Contrasting with the dark lyrics of the song, the music, which was written first, is upbeat. Foster said, "It's a 'fuck you' song to the hipsters in a way—but it's a song the hipsters are going to want to dance to."[6] Jeffery Berg of Frontier Psychiatrist said, "I was so engrossed with the cheery melody of its chorus that it took me a few listens to discover that the lyrics suggest dark, Columbine revenge."[14]

Pumped Up Kicks

706

Due to the opening lyrics, "Robert's got a quick hand," many have speculated that the song is a reference to Robert Hawkins, perpetrator of Omaha's Westroads Mall shooting. The band's publicist denied any connection: "This is completely false. The character name in the song is just a coincidence."[15] For play on the television channels MTV and MTVu, the words "gun" and "bullet" were removed from the song's chorus.[16] Many have misinterpreted the song's meaning, and have written letters to Foster's record label and called radio stations to complain. He explained, "The song is not about condoning violence at all. It's the complete opposite. The song is an amazing platform to have a conversation with your kids about something that shouldn't be ignored, to talk about it in a loving way."[4]

Pumped Up Kicks

707

"Pumped Up Kicks" drew considerable attention online after Foster posted the song on his website as a free download in early 2010; Nylon magazine used the track in an online advertising campaign,[17] and through various blogs, it went viral.[18] Foster the People first performed the song live at the Stand Up Charity Benefit in Venice in February.[19] The group, yet to be signed, garnered buzz with performances at the South by Southwest music festival in March.[20][21] Foster was emailed by many people about the song, and needing professional guidance, he contacted artist manager Brent Kredel at Monotone, Inc., saying, "Everyone is calling me and emailing me—what do I do? Who are the good guys, who are the bad guys?" Kredel recalled that "He went from the guy who couldn't get a hold of anyone to being the guy who had hundreds of emails in his inbox." Kredel and Brett Williams were subsequently hired to co-manage Foster the People, and they helped the group get a multi-album record deal with Columbia Records imprint Startime International in May 2010.[17] Wishing to release a record that would back up the song's success, the group wrote new material between July–September 2010.[17]

Pumped Up Kicks

708

"Pumped Up Kicks" was licensed for use in a July 2010 episode of the TV series Entourage, the first of many instances in which Foster the People's music was licensed in popular media.[17] The song received its first widespread radio play that month on Sirius XM's Alt Nation channel and the Australian radio station Triple J.[22] The song was released as their debut single on September 14, 2010.[citation needed] In November, the University of Maryland's radio station WMUC played the song, marking its debut on US terrestrial radio.[23] The song placed at number 32 in the Triple J's Hottest 100 for 2010,[24] a notable achievement due to the band being relatively unknown in Australia. Still, the group was inexperienced as a live act, and as a result, their booking agent Tom Windish secured them several club shows "to help them get their sea legs." Foster the People promoted these concerts in January 2011 by emailing fans who had downloaded "Pumped Up Kicks" from their website, notifying them of the shows. The group continued to grow its fanbase with a month-long residency of concerts in January at The Echo nightclub in Los Angeles. By the group's third show at the venue, according to Windish, "there were hundreds of people trying to get in outside... It was an obvious turning point that could be measured in numbers."[17]

Pumped Up Kicks

709

In January 2011, the band issued their first commercial non-single release, a self-titled EP on which "Pumped Up Kicks" appeared. Around the same time, many alternative radio stations began playing "Pumped Up Kicks", including Los Angeles terrestrial stations KROQ-FM and KYSR, and it continued to gain popularity on Alt Nation.[17] Mark Foster credits Sirius XM's airplay with the song's success, saying, "Alt Nation played our music before any other radio outlet in the country."[25] On January 29, the song debuted on Billboard's Rock Songs chart and a week later, it debuted on the Alternative Songs chart. In May, the track debuted at number 96 on the Billboard Hot 100, and later that month, the group released their first full-length studio album, Torches, on which "Pumped Up Kicks" appears.[17] On May 23, 2011, BBC Radio 1 DJ Greg James selected the song as his Record of the Week, which ran until May 27. During this time, James released an accompanying video of him dancing to the song which he entitled and promoted "The Bum Dance".[26]

Pumped Up Kicks

710

The song proved to be a crossover hit; after peaking at number one on the Alternative Songs chart in June and number three on the Rock Songs chart in July, the song broke into the top 40 of the Hot 100 in late July and appeared on the Adult Top 40 and Mainstream Top 40 charts. Columbia senior VP of promotion Lee Leipsner said, "It was one of the only alternative bands I remember in a while that you could actually dance to. And the fact that the record has a groove and rhythmic feel to it—not heavy guitar-based at all—gave us a wide opportunity to cross the record." He credits the song's crossover success and push into the top 40 to a June presentation of new music by Clear Channel president of national programming platforms Tom Poleman. According to Leipsner, "After we showed our presentation, we had so many Clear Channel major-market programmers come up to us and say, 'The record I want to play besides Adele is Foster the People.'" "Pumped Up Kicks" peaked at number three on the Hot 100, spending eight consecutive weeks at the position, seven of them stuck behind Maroon 5's "Moves Like Jagger" and Adele's "Someone like You" occupying the two spots above.[17] It has been certified 5× platinum in Canada and Australia,[27][28] 4× platinum in the United States,[29] and gold in Germany.[30] The song ranked as the sixth-best-selling digital song of 2011 in the United States with 3.84 million copies sold,[31] while it ranked as music streaming service Spotify's most streamed song of the year.[32] The song has sold 5,173,000 copies in the United States as of August 2013.[33]

Pumped Up Kicks

711

The music video, directed by Josef Geiger, features the band playing a show. There are also cuts to band members doing other activities, such as playing frisbee and surfing. The video peaked at #21 on the MuchMusic Countdown in Canada.[34] As of 29 December 2017[update], the video has received over 350 million views on YouTube.[4]

Pumped Up Kicks

712

"Pumped Up Kicks" received positive reviews from critics. Barry Walters of Spin said that with the song as their debut single, Foster the People "announce themselves as major players."[35] Jon Dolan of Rolling Stone described the song as having a "slinky groove, misty guitar flange and delicious astral-wimp vocals."[36] Rob Webb of NME drew some parallels between the song and other indie pop hits like "Young Folks," "Paris," and "Kids" describing its rise in popularity thus: "artist writes (undeniably brilliant) pop song, makes it catchy as hell, but quirky enough for the 'cool' crowd, song subsequently gets some big pimping from every blog/radio station/Hype Machine user on the planet and, seemingly overnight, becomes utterly, irritatingly inescapable."[37]

Pumped Up Kicks

713

August Brown of the Los Angeles Times called it a "reputation-making single" that "cakes Foster in Strokes-y vocal distortion atop a loping synth bass."[38] Jon Pareles of The New York Times called it a "pop ditty with dazed, dweeby vocals and a handclapping chorus that warns, 'You better run, better run, outrun my gun.'"[39] BBC Music's Mark Beaumont called the song a "psychedelic block party skipping tune." Reflecting on the song's fusion of various musical elements, Beaumont said the song is a prime example of how they "adapt Animal Collective's art-tronic adventurousness to incorporate the funky danceability of Scissor Sisters, the fuzzy pop catchiness of 'Kids' and the knack of throwing in deceptively downbeat twists akin to Girls, Sleigh Bells or Smith Westerns."[40] Matt Collar of Allmusic said the song, like other tracks from the album, is "catchy, electro-lite dance-pop that fits nicely next to such contemporaries as MGMT and Phoenix".[41] The Guardian's Michael Hann was less receptive, saying it "amounts to little more than a bassline and a chorus" and that "It's as irresistible as it is infuriating".[42]

Pumped Up Kicks

714

A Rolling Stone readers poll named it the second-best song of summer 2011.[43] Claire Suddath of Time magazine named "Pumped Up Kicks" one of the Top 10 Songs of 2011,[44] while Entertainment Weekly selected the song as the year's second-best single.[45] In end-of-year polls, writers for Rolling Stone selected "Pumped Up Kicks" as the 11th-best song of 2011,[46] while the publication's readers voted it the year's sixth-best song.[47]

Pumped Up Kicks

715

A listeners poll by Toronto radio station CFNY-FM (102.1 The Edge) voted it #1 in a list of the top 102 new rock songs of 2011.[48] NME ranked it number 21 on its list of the "50 Best Tracks of 2011", writing, "Unusually for a song so omnipresent, listening to its hyper-upbeat melodies about a psycho high-school kid-killer is still an enjoyable experience."[49] The magazine's readers voted "Pumped Up Kicks" the year's eighth-best song.[50] At the end of 2011, the song received a Grammy Award nomination for Best Pop Duo/Group Performance.[51]

Pumped Up Kicks

716

—Mark Foster, on the song's success[52]

Pumped Up Kicks

717

In an article for The Huffington Post, DJ Louie XIV singled out "Pumped Up Kicks" as one of several popular songs that helped usher in the return of commercially successful indie music. In discussing the growing acceptance of fringe cultures, he wrote, "It seems only fitting, then, that the soundtrack to this time period should be music that was itself once viewed as fringe culture."[53] Reflecting on the song's success, Gary Trust, the associate director of charts/radio for Billboard, said, "They're walking a tightrope very well in terms of eras, formats and styles. When you mix all that together, it becomes a very good recipe for a hit that works on so many levels. It's the perfect song." Foster said of the song, "There's a spirit there and that's what people resonate with. 'Pumped Up Kicks' wasn't an accident."[4]

Pumped Up Kicks

718

The song was used in TV series such as Entourage,[54] Gossip Girl, CSI:NY, Cougar Town, Homeland, Pretty Little Liars, Warehouse 13 and The Vampire Diaries, and also in the 2011 films Friends with Benefits[17] and Fright Night, as well as sampled in Shawn Chrystopher's song "All the Other Kids", from his 2010 hip-hop album You, and Only You. The whistling part of the song is part of the rotation of bumper music played on the Michael Medved syndicated radio program. The song was also used on the BBC programmes Top Gear and Match of the Day. On October 8, 2011, Foster the People performed the song on Saturday Night Live. The song was also used in Australian beer XXXX's "XXXX Summer Bright Lager" television commercial.[55] "Pumped Up Kicks" was included as a playable track in the music video game Rock Band Blitz and Guitar Hero Live. The song was also used in Season 1 Episode 4 of Suits in the episode "Dirty Little Secrets".[56] The song was used in an episode of American Horror Story. Season 1 Episode 6 "Piggy Piggy" Initial Air Date November 9, 2011.[57]

Pumped Up Kicks

719

The song was pulled from some U.S. radio stations in December 2012 in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, due to lyrics that depict a school shooting.[58]

Pumped Up Kicks

720

The official remix of the single was released by New York City-duo The Knocks in April 2011, under the name "Pumped Up Kicks (The Knocks Speeding Bullet Remix)", and was made available to subscribers to the band's email list. The song was covered by Weezer during their 2011 North American Tour, at the Orange County Fair on August 4, 2011. Weezer also played the song during their grandstand performance at the Minnesota State Fair on September 3, 2011.[59] Mark Foster said in reaction, "Nine years ago, I met Rivers Cuomo at a party, and I had my acoustic guitar with me. He taught me how to play 'Say It Ain't So'. So nine years later, to watch him play one of my songs - it was wild. I can't wait to meet him and remind him of that story."[60] Peruvian sinder Tongo also recorded a cover in 2017, called Pan con ají (Bread and peppers), in allusion to a vague pronunciation with Spanish phonemes. In 2017, French DJ Klingande released a song titled "Pumped Up" using the same lyrics in the chorus of the song.

Pumped Up Kicks

721

In 2011, The Kooks covered the song in BBC Radio 1's Live Lounge.[61] Australian musician Owl Eyes performed a version of "Pumped Up Kicks" for Triple J's Like a Version. Also in 2011 the underground rapper George Watsky released a Pumped Up Kicks remix on his album A New Kind of Sexy Mixtape. In the Triple J Hottest 100, 2011, Owl Eyes' version came in at 28, four positions higher than the original did the previous year. Singer-songwriters Dani Shay and Justin Chase covered the song in a theatrical music video October 2011[62] and released the single in November 2011.[63] A parody of the song was performed by Taylor Swift and Zac Efron on The Ellen DeGeneres Show, as a serenade to the host. Its lyrics were about how they felt weird when Ellen used to put them as a couple when they were not.[64] On March 12, 2012 singers Lex Land and Charlotte Sometimes performed the song during the second "Battle Round" episode of The Voice.[65] In September 2012, singer Mackenzie Bourg performed this song as his Blind Audition for The Voice, winning a spot on Cee Lo Green's team.[66] Kendrick Lamar also recorded a remix to the song with DJ Reflex.[67] On February 1, 2013 singer Fatin Shidqia performed this song as her solo performances on Bootcamp 3 episode of X Factor Indonesia.[68] The rapper Yonas released a remix version to "Pumped Up Kicks".[69] "Weird Al" Yankovic covered the song as part of his polka medley "NOW That's What I Call Polka!" for his 2014 album, Mandatory Fun.[70] Keller Williams with The Travelin' McCourys has performed this song in concert.[71][72]

Pumped Up Kicks

722

*sales figures based on certification alone ^shipments figures based on certification alone sales+streaming figures based on certification alone

Pumped Up Kicks

723

Since May 2013 RIAA certifications for digital singles include on-demand audio and/or video song streams in addition to downloads.[136]

Pumped Up Kicks

724

Protectionism is the economic policy of restricting imports from other countries through methods such as tariffs on imported goods, import quotas, and a variety of other government regulations. Proponents claim that protectionist policies shield the producers, businesses, and workers of the import-competing sector in the country from foreign competitors. However, they also reduce trade and adversely affect consumers in general (by raising the cost of imported goods), and harm the producers and workers in export sectors, both in the country implementing protectionist policies, and in the countries protected against.

Protectionism

725

There is a universal consensus among economists that protectionism has a negative effect on economic growth and economic welfare,[1][2][3][4] while free trade, deregulation, and the reduction of trade barriers has a positive effect on economic growth.[2][5][6][7][8][9] However, trade liberalization can sometimes result in large and unequally distributed losses and gains, and can, in the short run, cause significant economic dislocation of workers in import-competing sectors.[6]

Protectionism

726

A variety of policies have been used to achieve protectionist goals. These include:

Protectionism

727

In the modern trade arena many other initiatives besides tariffs have been called protectionist. For example, some commentators, such as Jagdish Bhagwati, see developed countries efforts in imposing their own labor or environmental standards as protectionism. Also, the imposition of restrictive certification procedures on imports are seen in this light.

Protectionism

728

Further, others point out that free trade agreements often have protectionist provisions such as intellectual property, copyright, and patent restrictions that benefit large corporations. These provisions restrict trade in music, movies, pharmaceuticals, software, and other manufactured items to high cost producers with quotas from low cost producers set to zero.[16]

Protectionism

729

Historically, protectionism was associated with economic theories such as mercantilism (which focused on achieving positive trade balance and accumulating gold), and import substitution.[citation needed]

Protectionism

730

In the 18th century, Adam Smith famously warned against the "interested sophistry" of industry, seeking to gain advantage at the cost of the consumers.[17] Friedrich List saw Adam Smith's views on free trade as disingenuous, believing that Smith advocated for freer trade so that British industry could lock out underdeveloped foreign competition.[18]

Protectionism

731

Some have argued that no major country has ever successfully industrialized without some form of economic protection.[19][20] Economic historian Paul Bairoch wrote that "historically, free trade is the exception and protectionism the rule".[21]

Protectionism

732

According to economic historians Douglas Irwin and Kevin O'Rourke, "shocks that emanate from brief financial crises tend to be transitory and have little long-run effect on trade policy, whereas those that play out over longer periods (early 1890s, early 1930s) may give rise to protectionism that is difficult to reverse. Regional wars also produce transitory shocks that have little impact on long-run trade policy, while global wars give rise to extensive government trade restrictions that can be difficult to reverse."[22]

Protectionism

733

One paper notes that sudden shifts in comparative advantage for specific countries have led said countries to become protectionist: "The shift in comparative advantage associated with the opening up of New World frontiers, and the subsequent “grain invasion” of Europe, led to higher agricultural tariffs from the late 1870s onwards, which as we have seen reversed the move toward freer trade that had characterized mid-nineteenth-century Europe. In the decades after World War II, Japan’s rapid rise led to trade friction with other countries. Japan’s recovery was accompanied by a sharp increase in its exports of certain product categories: cotton textiles in the 1950s, steel in the 1960s, automobiles in the 1970s, and electronics in the 1980s. In each case, the rapid expansion in Japan’s exports created difficulties for its trading partners and the use of protectionism as a shock absorber."[22]

Protectionism

734

According to some political theorists, protectionism is advocated mainly by parties that hold far-left or left-wing economic positions, while economically right-wing political parties generally support free trade.[23][24][25][26][27]

Protectionism

735

According to economic historian Douglas Irwin, a common myth about U.S. trade policy is that low tariffs harmed American manufacturers in the early 19th century and then that high tariffs made the United States into a great industrial power in the late 19th century.[28] A review by the Economist of Irwin's 2017 book Clashing over Commerce: A History of US Trade Policy notes:[28]

Protectionism

736

Political dynamics would lead people to see a link between tariffs and the economic cycle that was not there. A boom would generate enough revenue for tariffs to fall, and when the bust came pressure would build to raise them again. By the time that happened, the economy would be recovering, giving the impression that tariff cuts caused the crash and the reverse generated the recovery. Mr Irwin also methodically debunks the idea that protectionism made America a great industrial power, a notion believed by some to offer lessons for developing countries today. As its share of global manufacturing powered from 23% in 1870 to 36% in 1913, the admittedly high tariffs of the time came with a cost, estimated at around 0.5% of GDP in the mid-1870s. In some industries, they might have sped up development by a few years. But American growth during its protectionist period was more to do with its abundant resources and openness to people and ideas.

Protectionism

737

According to Paul Bairoch, the United States was "the mother country and bastion of modern protectionism" since the end of the 18th century and until the post-World War II period.[29]

Protectionism

738

The Bush administration implemented tariffs on Chinese steel in 2002; according to a 2005 review of existing research on the tariff, all studies found that the tariffs caused more harm than gains to the US economy and employment.[30] The Obama administration implemented tariffs on Chinese tires between 2009 and 2012 as an anti-dumping measure; a 2016 study found that these tariffs had no impact on employment and wages in the US tire industry.[31]

Protectionism

739

Europe became increasingly protectionist during the eighteenth century.[32] Economic historians Findlay and O'Rourke write that "the immediate aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars, European trade policies were almost universally protectionist," with the exceptions being smaller countries such as the Netherlands and Denmark.[32]

Protectionism

740

Europe increasingly liberalized its trade during the 19th century.[33] Countries such as Britain, the Netherlands, Denmark, Portugal and Switzerland, and arguably Sweden and Belgium, had fully moved towards free trade prior to 1860.[33] Economic historians see the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 as the decisive shift toward free trade in Britain.[33][34] A 1990 study by the Harvard economic historian Jeffrey Williamsson showed that the Corn Laws (which imposed restrictions and tariffs on imported grain) substantially increased the cost of living for unskilled and skilled British workers, and hampered the British manufacturing sector by reducing the disposable incomes that British workers could have spent on manufactured goods.[35] The shift towards liberalization in Britain occurred in part due to "the influence of economists like David Ricardo", but also due to "the growing power of urban interests".[33]

Protectionism

741

Findlay and O'Rourke characterize the 1860 Cobden Chevalier treaty between France and the United Kingdom as "a decisive shift toward European free trade."[33] This treaty was followed by numerous free trade agreements: "France and Belgium signed a treaty in 1861; a Franco-Prussian treaty was signed in 1862; Italy entered the “network of Cobden-Chevalier treaties” in 1863 (Bairoch 1989, 40); Switzerland in 1864; Sweden, Norway, Spain, the Netherlands, and the Hanseatic towns in 1865; and Austria in 1866. By 1877, less than two decades after the Cobden Chevalier treaty and three decades after British Repeal, Germany “had virtually become a free trade country” (Bairoch, 41). Average duties on manufactured products had declined to 9–12 percent on the Continent, a far cry from the 50 percent British tariffs, and numerous prohibitions elsewhere, of the immediate post-Waterloo era (Bairoch, table 3, p. 6, and table 5, p. 42)."[33]

Protectionism

742

Some European powers did not liberalize during the 19th century, such as the Russian Empire and Austro-Hungarian Empire which remained highly protectionist. The Ottoman Empire also became increasingly protectionist.[36] In the Ottoman Empire's case, however, it previously had liberal free trade policies during the 18th to early 19th centuries, which British prime minister Benjamin Disraeli cited as "an instance of the injury done by unrestrained competition" in the 1846 Corn Laws debate, arguing that it destroyed what had been "some of the finest manufactures of the world" in 1812.[37]

Protectionism

743

The countries of Western Europe began to steadily liberalize their economies after World War II and the protectionism of the interwar period.[32]

Protectionism

744

Since 1971 Canada has protected producers of eggs, milk, cheese, chickens, and turkeys with a system of supply management. Though prices for these foods in Canada exceed global prices, the farmers and processors have had the security of a stable market to finance their operations. Since Canadian milk is free of bovine somatotropin, the program relates to public health and consumer protection.

Protectionism

745

In Quebec, the Federation of Quebec Maple Syrup Producers manages the supply of maple syrup.

Protectionism

746

According to one assessment, tariffs were "far higher" in Latin America than the rest of the world in the century prior to the Great Depression.[38][39]

Protectionism

747

There is a broad consensus among economists that protectionism has a negative effect on economic growth and economic welfare, while free trade and the reduction of trade barriers has a positive effect on economic growth.[5][6][7][2][40][41]

Protectionism

748

Protectionism is frequently criticized by economists as harming the people it is meant to help. Mainstream economists instead support free trade.[17][42] The principle of comparative advantage shows that the gains from free trade outweigh any losses as free trade creates more jobs than it destroys because it allows countries to specialize in the production of goods and services in which they have a comparative advantage.[43] Protectionism results in deadweight loss; this loss to overall welfare gives no-one any benefit, unlike in a free market, where there is no such total loss. According to economist Stephen P. Magee, the benefits of free trade outweigh the losses by as much as 100 to 1.[44] Protectionists believe that there is a legitimate need for government restrictions on free trade in order to protect their country’s economic, and therefore political independence.[citation needed]

Protectionism

749

A 2016 study found that "that trade typically favors the poor", as they spend a greater share of their earnings on goods, and as free trade reduces the costs of goods.[45] Other research found that China's entry to the WTO benefitted US consumers, as the price of Chinese goods were substantially reduced.[46] Harvard economist Dani Rodrik argues that while globalization and free trade does contribute to social problems, "a serious retreat into protectionism would hurt the many groups that benefit from trade and would result in the same kind of social conflicts that globalization itself generates. We have to recognize that erecting trade barriers will help in only a limited set of circumstances and that trade policies will rarely be the best response to the problems [of globalization]".[47]

Protectionism

750

According to economic historians Findlay and O'Rourke, there is a consensus in the economics literature that protectionist policies in the interwar period "hurt the world economy overall, although there is a debate about whether the effect was large or small."[32]

Protectionism

751

Economic historian Paul Bairoch argued that economic protection was positively correlated with economic and industrial growth during the 19th century. For example, GNP growth during Europe's "liberal period" in the middle of the century (where tariffs were at their lowest), averaged 1.7% per year, while industrial growth averaged 1.8% per year. However, during the protectionist era of the 1870s and 1890s, GNP growth averaged 2.6% per year, while industrial output grew at 3.8% per year, roughly twice as fast as it had during the liberal era of low tariffs and free trade.[48] One study found that tariffs imposed on manufactured goods increase economic growth in developing countries, and this growth impact remains even after the tariffs are repealed.[49]

Protectionism

752

According to Dartmouth economist Douglas Irwin, "that there is a correlation between high tariffs and growth in the late nineteenth century cannot be denied. But correlation is not causation... there is no reason for necessarily thinking that import protection was a good policy just because the economic outcome was good: the outcome could have been driven by factors completely unrelated to the tariff, or perhaps could have been even better in the absence of protection."[50] Irwin furthermore writes that "few observers have argued outright that the high tariffs caused such growth."[50]

Protectionism

753

According to Oxford economic historian Kevin O'Rourke, "It seems clear that protection was important for the growth of US manufacturing in the first half of the 19th century; but this does not necessarily imply that the tariff was beneficial for GDP growth. Protectionists have often pointed to German and American industrialization during this period as evidence in favour of their position, but economic growth is influenced by many factors other than trade policy, and it is important to control for these when assessing the links between tariffs and growth."[51]

Protectionism

754

A prominent 1999 study by Jeffrey A. Frankel and David H. Romer found, contrary to free trade skeptics' claims, while controlling for relevant factors, that trade does indeed have a positive impact on growth and incomes.[52]

Protectionism

755

There is broad consensus among economists that free trade helps workers in developing countries, even though they are not subject to the stringent health and labour standards of developed countries. This is because "the growth of manufacturing—and of the myriad other jobs that the new export sector creates—has a ripple effect throughout the economy" that creates competition among producers, lifting wages and living conditions.[53] The Nobel laureates, Milton Friedman and Paul Krugman, have argued for free trade as a model for economic development.[5] Alan Greenspan, former chair of the American Federal Reserve, has criticized protectionist proposals as leading "to an atrophy of our competitive ability. ... If the protectionist route is followed, newer, more efficient industries will have less scope to expand, and overall output and economic welfare will suffer."[54]

Protectionism

756

Protectionists postulate that new industries may require protection from entrenched foreign competition in order to develop. This was Alexander Hamilton's argument in his "Report on Manufactures",[citation needed] and the primary reason why George Washington signed the Tariff Act of 1789.[citation needed] Mainstream economists do concede that tariffs can in the short-term help domestic industries to develop, but are contingent on the short-term nature of the protective tariffs and the ability of the government to pick the winners.[55][56] The problems are that protective tariffs will not be reduced after the infant industry reaches a foothold, and that governments will not pick industries that are likely to succeed.[56] Economists have identified a number of cases across different countries and industries where attempts to shelter infant industries failed.[57][58][59][60][61]

Protectionism

757

Economists such as Paul Krugman have speculated that those who support protectionism ostensibly to further the interests of workers in least developed countries are in fact being disingenuous, seeking only to protect jobs in developed countries.[62] Additionally, workers in the least developed countries only accept jobs if they are the best on offer, as all mutually consensual exchanges must be of benefit to both sides, or else they wouldn't be entered into freely. That they accept low-paying jobs from companies in developed countries shows that their other employment prospects are worse. A letter reprinted in the May 2010 edition of Econ Journal Watch identifies a similar sentiment against protectionism from 16 British economists at the beginning of the 20th century.[63]

Protectionism

758

Protectionism has also been accused of being one of the major causes of war. Proponents of this theory point to the constant warfare in the 17th and 18th centuries among European countries whose governments were predominantly mercantilist and protectionist, the American Revolution, which came about ostensibly due to British tariffs and taxes, as well as the protective policies preceding both World War I and World War II. According to a slogan of Frédéric Bastiat (1801–1850), "When goods cannot cross borders, armies will."[64]

Protectionism

759

Since the end of World War II, it has been the stated policy of most First World countries to eliminate protectionism through free trade policies enforced by international treaties and organizations such as the World Trade Organization[66] Certain policies of First World governments have been criticized as protectionist, however, such as the Common Agricultural Policy[67] in the European Union, longstanding agricultural subsidies and proposed "Buy American" provisions[68] in economic recovery packages in the United States.

Protectionism

760

Heads of the G20 meeting in London on 2 April 2009 pledged "We will not repeat the historic mistakes of protectionism of previous eras". Adherence to this pledge is monitored by the Global Trade Alert,[69] providing up-to-date information and informed commentary to help ensure that the G20 pledge is met by maintaining confidence in the world trading system, detering beggar-thy-neighbor acts, and preserving the contribution that exports could play in the future recovery of the world economy.

Protectionism

761

Although they were reiterating what they had already committed to, last November in Washington, 17 of these 20 countries were reported by the World Bank as having imposed trade restrictive measures since then. In its report, the World Bank says most of the world's major economies are resorting to protectionist measures as the global economic slowdown begins to bite. Economists who have examined the impact of new trade-restrictive measures using detailed bilaterally monthly trade statistics estimated that new measures taken through late 2009 were distorting global merchandise trade by 0.25% to 0.5% (about $50 billion a year).[70]

Protectionism

762

Since then however, then-President-elect Donald Trump announced in November 2016 that he would abandon the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) deal, placing the protectionist policies reflected in Trumponomics very much on the table, despite the wishes of all the other G20 nations.

Protectionism

763

Las Vegas Stadium is the working name for a domed stadium under construction in Paradise, Nevada for the Las Vegas Raiders of the National Football League (NFL) and the UNLV Rebels football team from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV). It is located on about 62 acres west of Mandalay Bay at Russell Road and Hacienda Avenue and between Polaris Avenue and Dean Martin Drive, just west of Interstate 15. Construction of the $1.9 billion stadium began in September 2017 and is expected to be completed in time for the 2020 NFL season.

Las Vegas Stadium

764

In January 2016, reports emerged that Las Vegas Sands was considering developing a stadium in conjunction with Majestic Realty and UNLV, on a 42-acre site owned by UNLV.[6] UNLV had been in the market to for a new stadium to replace Sam Boyd Stadium since at least 2011.[7] Raiders owner Mark Davis visited Las Vegas on January 29 to tour the site and meet with Sands chairman Sheldon Adelson and other local figures.[8] The Raiders, who had been trying to get a new, long term stadium built for the team since the 1980s had just missed out on relocating to Los Angeles that same month and were at an impasse in Oakland. In order for the team to relocate to Las Vegas a new stadium was required since Sam Boyd Stadium is undersized for the NFL and there are no other professional-caliber stadiums in Nevada.

Las Vegas Stadium

765

On March 21, 2016, when asked about Las Vegas, Davis said, "I think the Raiders like the Las Vegas plan," and "it's a very very very intriguing and exciting plan", referring to the stadium plan in Las Vegas. Davis also met with Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval about the stadium plan. On April 1, 2016, Davis toured Sam Boyd Stadium to evaluate whether UNLV could serve as a temporary home of the team and was with UNLV football coach Tony Sanchez, athletic director Tina Kunzer-Murphy, adviser Don Snyder and school president Len Jessup to further explore the possibility of the Raiders moving to Las Vegas.

Las Vegas Stadium

766

On April 28, 2016, Davis said he wanted to move the Raiders to Las Vegas and pledged $500 million toward the construction of the proposed $2.4 billion domed stadium.[9][10] "Together we can turn the Silver State into the silver and black state," Davis said.[9][11]

Las Vegas Stadium

767

In the spring of 2016, the board of directors of Las Vegas Sands rejected Adelson's stadium proposal. Adelson decided to move ahead with the stadium as an individual investment, pledging $650 million of his personal wealth to the project.[12]

Las Vegas Stadium

768

The viability of the Tropicana Avenue site was called into serious question in June 2016, when Southwest Airlines objected to the location because its proximity to the northern end of one of McCarran Airport's runways could have a negative impact on the safety and capacity of air traffic at the airport.[13] The list of potential locations soon expanded to nine candidates, including the sites of the Wild Wild West casino, the Wynn golf course, the Riviera casino, the Las Vegas Festival Grounds, and Cashman Center.[14] By September, the list was narrowed to two possibilities: the Bali Hai Golf Club, south of Mandalay Bay, and a vacant lot on Russell Road, just west of Interstate 15.[15]

Las Vegas Stadium

769

On August 25, 2016, the Raiders filed a trademark application for "Las Vegas Raiders" on the same day renderings of a proposed stadium design were released.[16] On September 15, 2016, the Southern Nevada Tourism Infrastructure Committee unanimously voted to recommend and approve $750 million for the Las Vegas stadium plan.[17]

Las Vegas Stadium

770

Majestic Realty revealed in October 2016 that it had withdrawn from the stadium project.[18]

Las Vegas Stadium

771

Sandoval called a special session of the Nevada Legislature to consider the stadium and other tourism-related proposals in October 2016.[19] The funding bill for the stadium was approved by a 16–5 vote in the Senate and by 28–13 in the Assembly, and was signed into law by Sandoval on October 17.[20][21][22][23] The bill increased a hotel tax to provide the $750 million in funding.[22]

Las Vegas Stadium

772

The Raiders filed relocation papers on January 19 to move from Oakland to Las Vegas.[24] On January 26, 2017, the Raiders submitted a proposed lease agreement for the stadium. It was reported that the Raiders had selected the Russell Road site as the stadium location, the team would pay one dollar in rent, and that they could control the naming rights for both the stadium and plaza and in addition keep signage sponsorship revenue.[25]

Las Vegas Stadium

773

Days after the Raiders' announced proposal, Adelson dropped out of the stadium project, pulling his proposed $650 million contribution, and shortly after this announcement Goldman Sachs (one of the backers of stadium proposal) withdrew as well.[26] ESPN reported on January 30, 2017, that the Raiders were expected to increase their contribution from $500 million to $1.15 billion.[27]

Las Vegas Stadium

774

On March 6, the Raiders revealed Bank of America would be replacing the Adelson portion of the funding.[28]

Las Vegas Stadium

775

NFL owners voted to approve the move by a near unanimous margin of 31 to 1 on March 27. Only Stephen M. Ross, owner of the Miami Dolphins, voted against the relocation.[29][30][31] The next day, the Raiders and the Las Vegas Stadium Authority began accepting deposits for season tickets for the new stadium.[32] The Raiders announced that they planned to remain in Oakland until the stadium is complete.

Las Vegas Stadium

776

The Raiders closed the purchase of the land for the stadium at the Russell Road site on May 1. The purchase price was reported at $77.5 million.[33] In a Las Vegas Stadium Authority meeting on May 11, it was announced that in a joint venture Mortenson Construction and McCarthy Construction will be the developers for the stadium. Mortenson Construction previously worked on U.S. Bank Stadium in Minneapolis for the Minnesota Vikings. The stadium authority approved a stadium lease with the Raiders on May 18.[34] The lease is for 30 years with four successive extension options of five years each.[35]

Las Vegas Stadium

777

On September 18, construction activity began on the stadium site with site preparation.[36] The Raiders officially broke ground for the new stadium on November 13.[37][38] The ceremony featured NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, Raiders owner Mark Davis, his mother Carol Davis, various Raiders legends including Howie Long, Jim Plunkett, Tom Flores, and Ray Guy, Las Vegas and Nevada politicians such as Governor Brian Sandoval, Las Vegas Mayor Carolyn Goodman, Clark County Commissioner Steve Sisolak and stadium authority head Steve Hill. The event was hosted by George Lopez and included other celebrities like Carlos Santana, longtime Vegas icon Wayne Newton, and Howie D and Nick Carter of the Backstreet Boys. There was also a tribute to the victims of the 2017 Las Vegas shooting that happened nearby by with Judith Hill and the Las Vegas House of Blues Gospel Choir performing ‘Rise up’ while 58 beams of light for the 58 people shot and killed lit up.[39]

Las Vegas Stadium

778

In January, construction crews began blasting caliche rock with dynamite to excavate and create the stadium bowl.[40]

Las Vegas Stadium

779

The budget for development of the stadium is estimated at $1.9 billion. Of this, an estimated $375 million is to be spent on land and infrastructure costs, $1.35 billion on construction, and $100 million on a Raiders practice facility, with the remaining $100 million as a contingency allowance for unexpected costs.[41][42][43]

Las Vegas Stadium

780

The financing for the project is expected to come in the form of $750 million in public funding, $500 million from the Raiders, and $650 million lent by Bank of America.[42] The public portion of the funding will come from municipal bonds issued by Clark County, backed by the proceeds of a special tax on hotel rooms in the Las Vegas area, which was initiated in March 2017.[44] The Raiders' contribution is expected to include a $200 million loan from the NFL's stadium upgrade program, $250 million from sales of personal seat licenses at the stadium, and $50 million from cash reserves.[45]

Las Vegas Stadium

781

Local government cannot receive any rent or revenue sharing from the stadium, because such an arrangement would not be compatible with the tax-exempt status of the bonds.[46] Proponents instead argued that the public financing would be justified by increased economic activity and tax revenue related to the stadium.[47] Critics have argued that the economic projections were based on overly optimistic assumptions.[48][49]

Las Vegas Stadium

782

For Las Vegas Stadium, Mark Davis retained the same architecture firm, MANICA Architecture, that had designed the previously proposed Carson Stadium near Los Angeles.[50][51] The stadium as proposed is a 10 level domed stadium with a clear ETFE roof, silver and black exterior and large retractable curtain-like side windows facing the Las Vegas Strip.[52] There is a large torch in one end that would house a flame in honor of Al Davis, the late long-time owner of the Raiders.[53]

Las Vegas Stadium

783

Updated renderings released after the relocation vote passed show the stadium with a roll-in natural grass field similar to the one at University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale, Arizona.[54] In an August 17, 2017 Las Vegas Stadium Authority meeting it was revealed that the stadium will have a designated pickup/drop off loop for ride sharing services such as Uber and Lyft, a first for a stadium in the NFL.

Las Vegas Stadium

784

The stadium will replace Sam Boyd Stadium and will serve as the home of both the Raiders and the UNLV Rebels football program. In addition, it will host various events now held at Sam Boyd, such as the Las Vegas Bowl.[55]

Las Vegas Stadium

785

Stadium backers project 20 to 25 additional events per year, with plausible possibilities including the Super Bowl, the Pro Bowl, the NFL Draft, the NCAA Final Four, the USA Sevens rugby tournament, the Monster Jam World Finals, boxing matches, Ultimate Fighting Championship events, neutral-site college football games, international soccer matches, concerts, and corporate shows.[56][57]

Las Vegas Stadium

786

The stadium has also been cited as the possible home for a Major League Soccer expansion team owned by David Beckham.[58]

Las Vegas Stadium

787

The Eleventh Amendment (Amendment XI) to the United States Constitution, which was passed by Congress on March 4, 1794, and ratified by the states on February 7, 1795, deals with each state's sovereign immunity and was adopted to overrule the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793).[1]

Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution

788

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution

789

The Eleventh Amendment was the first Constitutional amendment adopted after the Bill of Rights. The amendment was adopted following the Supreme Court's ruling in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793). In Chisholm, the Court ruled that federal courts had the authority to hear cases in law and equity brought by private citizens against states and that states did not enjoy sovereign immunity from suits made by citizens of other states in federal court. Thus, the amendment clarified Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, which gives diversity jurisdiction to the judiciary to hear cases "between a state and citizens of another state".[2]

Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution

790

The Eleventh Amendment was proposed by the 3rd Congress on March 4, 1794, when it was approved by the House of Representatives by vote of 81–9,[3] having been previously passed by the Senate, 23–2, on January 14, 1794.[4] The amendment was ratified by the state legislatures of the following states:[5]

Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution

791

As there were 15 States at the time, the ratification by twelve States added the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution. It was subsequently ratified by:

Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution

792

On January 8, 1798, approximately three years after the Eleventh Amendment's adoption, President John Adams stated in a message to Congress that the Eleventh Amendment had been ratified by the necessary number of States and that it was now a part of the Constitution of the United States.[6] New Jersey and Pennsylvania did not take action on the amendment; neither did Tennessee, which had become a State on June 16, 1796.

Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution

793

In Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 U.S. 378 (1798), the Supreme Court held that every pending action brought under Chisholm had to be dismissed because of the amendment's adoption.[7]

Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution

794

The amendment's text does not mention suits brought against a state by its own citizens. However, in Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890), the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment reflects a broader principle of sovereign immunity. As Justice Anthony Kennedy later stated in Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999):

Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution

795

[S]overeign immunity derives not from the Eleventh Amendment but from the structure of the original Constitution itself. ... Nor can we conclude that the specific Article I powers delegated to Congress necessarily include, by virtue of the Necessary and Proper Clause or otherwise, the incidental authority to subject the States to private suits as a means of achieving objectives otherwise within the scope of the enumerated powers.[8]

Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution

796

However, Justice David Souter, writing for a four-Justice dissent in Alden, said the states surrendered their sovereign immunity when they ratified the Constitution. He read the amendment's text as reflecting a narrow form of sovereign immunity that limited only the diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts. He concluded that neither the Eleventh Amendment in particular nor the Constitution in general insulates the states from suits by individuals.[9]

Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution

797

Although the Eleventh Amendment grants immunity to states from suit for money damages or equitable relief without their consent, in Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts may enjoin state officials from violating federal law. In Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976), the Supreme Court ruled that Congress may abrogate state immunity from suit under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Central Virginia Community College v. Katz, 546 U.S. 356 (2006), the Court ruled the Congress could do the same regarding bankruptcy cases by way of Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution. In Lapides v. Board of Regents of Univ. System of Ga., 535 U.S. 613 (2002), the Supreme Court ruled that when a state invokes a federal court's removal jurisdiction, it waives the Eleventh Amendment in the removed case.

Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution

798

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has ruled that Puerto Rico enjoys Eleventh Amendment immunity.[10]

Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution

799

The territories of American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands and the Virgin Islands do not enjoy Eleventh Amendment immunity.[11][12][13]

Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution