Category: Latest News

The Biden administration said on Friday that it intended to nominate Michael S. Barr, a law professor and a former Obama administration official, to be the Federal Reserve’s vice chair for supervision.

The position — one of America’s top financial regulatory spots — has proved to be a particularly thorny one to fill.

The administration’s initial nominee, Sarah Bloom Raskin, failed to win Senate confirmation after Republicans took issue with her writing on climate-related financial oversight and seized on her limited answers about her private-sector work. Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, joined Republicans in deciding not to support her, ending her chances.

Mr. Barr, the dean of the University of Michigan’s public policy school, could also face challenges in securing widespread support. He was a leading contender to be nominated as comptroller of the currency but ran into opposition from progressive Democrats.

Some of the complaints centered on his work in government: As a Treasury Department official during the Obama administration, Mr. Barr played a major role in putting together the Dodd-Frank Act, which revamped financial regulation after the 2008 financial crisis. But some said he opposed some especially stringent measures for big banks.

Other opponents when his name was floated for that post focused on his private-sector work with the financial technology and cryptocurrency industry.

But President Biden described Mr. Barr as a qualified candidate who would bring years of experience to the job.

“Barr has strong support from across the political spectrum,” the president said in a statement announcing the decision. He noted that Mr. Barr had been confirmed to his Treasury post “on a bipartisan basis.”

Senator Sherrod Brown, the Ohio Democrat who chairs the Senate Banking Committee, said in a statement, “I will support this key nominee, and I strongly urge my Republican colleagues to abandon their old playbook of personal attacks and demagoguery.”

Ian Katz, managing director at the research and advisory firm Capital Alpha, put Mr. Barr’s chance of confirmation at 60 percent. “Barr is seen by many as more moderate than Sarah Bloom Raskin,” Mr. Katz wrote in a note ahead of the announcement but after speculation that Mr. Barr might be chosen.

Mr. Barr completes Mr. Biden’s slate of candidates for the central bank’s five open positions.

The other picks — Jerome H. Powell for another term as Fed chair, Lael Brainard for vice chair, and Lisa D. Cook and Philip N. Jefferson for seats on the Board of Governors — await confirmation. Those nominations have gotten past the Senate Banking Committee, the first step toward confirmation, and a vote before the full Senate is expected in the coming weeks.

Mr. Biden said he would work with the committee to get Mr. Barr through his first vote quickly, and he called for swift confirmation of the others.

‘Black Crab’

Stream it on Netflix.

For many fans, the girl with the dragon tattoo will always be Noomi Rapace. In the decade since she portrayed the Goth hacker Lisbeth Salander in a Swedish film trilogy, Rapace has built a thriving international career that leans heavily on thrillers and science fiction. Now, she is back in her native land with this war movie set in a dystopian future to which the conflict in Ukraine suddenly lends a tragic contemporary echo. Rapace’s Caroline Edh is a soldier so badass that she is asked to join a small unit tasked with ferrying supersecret, super important canisters — on ice skates. She agrees, but not because she is patriotic: Caroline has been told that a camp on the other side of the vast frozen expanse holds her daughter, who was abducted years earlier.

The plot is fairly basic, but the film benefits from two formidable assets. The first, of course, is Rapace, who can suggest steely determination like few others. The other is Adam Berg’s assured direction. All the scenes on the ice are absolutely superb — sometimes eerily beautiful and sometimes, well, chilling — and the sound design is so richly evocative that you might want to watch with headphones. Let’s hope Berg and Rapace team up again.

‘American Refugee’

Rent or buy on most major platforms.

This futuristic, or futuristic-ish, thriller has a pedigree singular enough to draw attention: The film is co-produced by Blumhouse, best known for its horror fare, and directed by Ali LeRoi, who created the sitcom “Everybody Hates Chris” with Chris Rock. Maybe that’s why “American Refugee” cannot quite make up its mind as to what story it wants to tell, or how.

But there is a big reason to watch anyway, and it’s Erika Alexander.

Still most famous as the star of the 1990s series “Living Single,” Alexander is an authoritative presence as Helen Taylor, an obstetrician. (Her job plays a key part in the plot.) Her marriage with Derek Luke’s Greg is going through a rocky patch, which is not helped by the United States crashing into catastrophic economic failure that in turn spirals into civil unrest.

As the country collapses (cue the obligatory montage of alarming news reports), the Taylors and their children must run away from home invaders. They find shelter of sorts in the compound of their prepper neighbor, Winter (Sam Trammell, not nearly menacing enough). From then on the movie pretty much abandons the whole financial-apocalypse setup to focus on single-location suspense.

As an action film, “American Refugee” comes up short. Where it is a lot more interesting is as a look at masculinity in a time of social meltdown, with a pair of men desperately trying to prove their worth as they feel threatened by the strength and autonomy of the women in their lives. Science fiction? Hardly.

‘Captain Nova’

Stream it on Netflix.

With a future Earth a nearly uninhabitable wasteland, Nova (Anniek Pheifer) is sent back in time to stop the chain of events that will destroy the world. There is a glitch, though: Nova ends up 25 years younger after her trip so for most of the movie she is an intense, Greta Thunberg-like 12-year-old girl (Kika van de Vijver). With the help of her new friend Nas (Marouane Meftah), Nova sets up to change the course of history. While this Dutch family film about a pint-size eco-warrior does feature a cute little robot, its overall approach is fairly serious; this is not “Spy Kids vs. Climate Change.” (It figures that the Dutch version of the “Terminator” premise would be about an ecological apocalypse rather than a robot uprising.) It’s rather nice to have a children-appropriate story that does not sugarcoat its message, though parents might have to be ready for some heavy-duty post-viewing conversations. And that’s not a bad thing in our current circumstances.

‘The Blazing World’

Rent or buy on most major platforms.

Carlson Young’s debut feature is that rare film: the product of what feels like a personal, obsessive vision. You can see traces of Peter Strickland (“The Duke of Burgundy”) and Dario Argento in the bizarre world she conjures. Young herself plays Margaret Winter, a troubled young woman who never quite recovered from the death of her twin sister when they were little girls. Margaret feels as she doesn’t belong anywhere, least of all with her feuding parents (Dermot Mulroney and Vinessa Shaw). Eventually, she finds a purpose in a series of fantastical trials orchestrated by Lained (the singular German actor Udo Kier doing strangeness very, very well), who is the film’s answer to the Goblin King of “Labyrinth.”

Mixing up sci-fi, horror and fantasy, the film deals with overcoming trauma and growing up. It’s a fairly familiar subject, but “The Blazing World” has an idiosyncratic touch all its own, bolstered by ambitious production design and an evocative score by the Foster the People keyboardist Isom Innis.

‘Madelines’

Rent or buy on most major platforms.

The director Jason Richard Miller has a lot of fun with this low-budget, high-concept time-travel film, which is as gory as it is wacky. Funded by an avuncular patron (Richard Riehle), Madeline (Brea Grant) and Owen (Parry Shen) are building a time machine in their garage. Madeline decides to test their invention in person because she does not want to sacrifice another animal after a test mouse met a bloody end. (The film is barely past the 10-minute mark by then, because Miller has no interest in exposition or back story; this is refreshing.) Madeline inadvertently creates a loop that generates dozens and dozens of versions of herself, with one materializing in the garden every day at the same time. Because two versions of one person can’t coexist, Owen, using an array of inventive devices, must kill each new Madeline as soon as she pops up. The 1980s-style synth score has announced the comic tone from the start, and much of the film’s humor derives from the completely nonchalant way Madeline and Owen handle their predicament: Of course time travel is possible! Of course a guy has to kill his wife over and over! Of course the Madelines become murderous! Like a rambunctious lo-fi band, the film gets by on a devil-may-care energy that defies the viewer from taking anything too seriously.

Twitter unveiled its counterattack against Elon Musk on Friday, using a strategy invented to repel corporate raiders in an attempt to block a takeover bid by the world’s richest man.

The strategy, known as a poison pill, would flood the market with new shares if Mr. Musk, or any other individual or group working together, bought 15 percent or more of Twitter’s shares. That would immediately reduce Mr. Musk’s stake and make it significantly more difficult to buy up a sizable potion of the company. Mr. Musk currently owns more than 9 percent of the company’s stock.

The goal is to force anyone trying to acquire the company to negotiate directly with the board. Investors rarely try to break through a poison pill threshold, securities experts say, with the caveat that Mr. Musk rarely abides by precedent.

Companies are often wary of using poison pills because they do not want to be seen as unfriendly to shareholders. Still, some critics, like Institutional Shareholder Services, an influential advisory group, have indicated that they are open to the tactic in certain circumstances.

Twitter said the mechanism would not stop the company from holding talks about a sale with any potential buyer and would give it more time to negotiate a deal that offers a sufficient premium.

The pill “does not mean that the company is going to be independent forever,” said Drew Pascarella, a senior lecturer of finance at Cornell University. “It just means that they can effectively fend off Elon.”

Mr. Musk announced his intention to acquire the social media service on Thursday, making public an unsolicited bid worth more than $40 billion. In an interview later that day, he took issue with Twitter’s moderation policies, calling Twitter the “de facto town square” and saying that “it’s really important that people have the reality and the perception that they are able to speak freely within the bounds of the law.”

He also said he had a Plan B if the board rejected his offer, though he did not share it.

Analysts have said that Mr. Musk’s bid — which offers significantly more per share than the current stock price but is well below its peak last year — may undervalue the company. They have also raised concerns about Mr. Musk’s ability to cobble together financing. If the board negotiated a deal with Mr. Musk, it could include a sizable breakup fee that might assuage concerns about his volatile nature conflicting with the ability of the deal to close, some securities lawyers said.

Twitter attempted to wrangle the world’s wealthiest man in recent weeks as he snapped up its shares. Last week, Twitter offered Mr. Musk a board seat, but he soured on the arrangement when it became clear that he would no longer be able to freely criticize the company. He rejected the role on Saturday and informed Twitter on Wednesday evening of his acquisition plans.

Twitter said in a statement that its poison pill plan, which will remain in effect until April of next year, “is similar to other plans adopted by publicly held companies in comparable circumstances.”

Twitter’s other top shareholders, according to FactSet, include the investment giant Vanguard Group, the largest, with a 10.3 percent stake; Morgan Stanley Investment Management, with an 8 percent stake; and BlackRock Fund Advisors, with a 4.6 percent stake.

Ark Investment Management, led by Cathie Wood, a star of the Reddit investing community who has previously bet on Mr. Musk, has a 2.15 percent stake. One of Twitter’s founders, Jack Dorsey, who is friendly with Mr. Musk, has a 2.2 percent stake. Twitter’s board, which includes Mr. Dorsey, voted unanimously to approve the poison pill.

Mr. Musk seemed to be girding for a protracted fight on Thursday. “Taking Twitter private at $54.20 should be up to shareholders, not the board,” he tweeted, alongside a Yes/No poll.

Mr. Musk’s initial, bare-bones offer left open significant questions. Mr. Musk has hired Morgan Stanley to advise on the bid, although the investment bank is not known for financing large-scale deals on its own. And Twitter shareholders seemed wary: Twitter’s stock fell almost 2 percent on Thursday, closing at $45.08 — significantly below Mr. Musk’s offer. Stock markets in the U.S. were closed Friday for the Good Friday holiday.

Prince Al Waleed bin Talal of Saudi Arabia, who described himself as one of Twitter’s largest and most long-term shareholders, said on Thursday that Twitter should reject Mr. Musk’s offer because its was not high enough to reflect the company’s “intrinsic value.” Analysts also suggested that Mr. Musk’s price was too low and did not reflect Twitter’s recent performance.

Mr. Musk argued that taking Twitter private would allow more free speech to flow on the platform. “My strong intuitive sense is that having a public platform that is maximally trusted and broadly inclusive is extremely important to the future of civilization,” he said in an interview at the TED conference on Thursday.

He also insisted that the algorithm Twitter uses to rank its content, deciding what hundreds of millions of users see on the service every day, should be public for users to audit.

Mr. Musk’s concerns are shared by many executives at Twitter, who have also pressed for more transparency about its algorithms. The company has published internal research about bias in its algorithms and funded an effort to create an open, transparent standard for social media services.

But Twitter balked at Mr. Musk’s hardball tactics. After a Thursday morning board meeting, the company began exploring options to block Mr. Musk, including the poison pill and the possibility of courting another buyer.

During an all-hands meeting on Thursday, Twitter’s chief executive, Parag Agrawal, sought to reassure employees about the potential shake-up. Although he declined to share details about the board’s plans, he encouraged employees to stay focused and not allow themselves to be distracted by Mr. Musk.

This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

Is the U.S. dollar about to lose its special dominant role in the world financial system? People have been asking that question for my entire professional career. Seriously: I published my first paper on the subject in 1980.

A lot has changed in the world since I wrote that paper, notably the creation of the euro and the rise of China. Yet the answer remains the same: probably not. For different reasons — political fragmentation in Europe, autocratic caprice in China — neither the euro nor the yuan is a plausible alternative to the dollar.

Also, even if the dollar’s dominance erodes, it won’t matter very much.

What do we mean when we talk about dollar dominance? Economists traditionally assign three roles to money. It’s a medium of exchange: I don’t give economics lectures in payment for groceries; I get paid in dollars to lecture and use those dollars to buy food. It’s a store of value: I keep dollars in my wallet and my bank account. And it’s a “unit of account”: salaries are set in dollars, prices are listed in dollars, mortgage payments are specified in dollars.

Many currencies play these roles in domestic business. The dollar is special because it plays a disproportionate role in international business. It’s the medium of exchange among currencies: Someone who wants to convert Bolivian bolivianos to Malaysian ringgit normally sells the bolivianos for dollars, then uses the dollars to buy ringgit. It’s a global store of value: Many people around the world hold dollar bank accounts. And it’s an international unit of account: Many goods made outside the United States are priced in dollars; many international bonds promise repayment in dollars.

Where does this continuing dominance come from, given that the U.S. economy no longer has the commanding position it held for a couple of decades after World War II? The answer is that there are self-reinforcing feedback loops, in which people use dollars because other people use dollars.

In that old 1980 paper I focused on the size and thickness of markets. There are a lot more people wanting to exchange bolivianos and ringgit for dollars than there are people wanting to exchange bolivianos for ringgit, so it’s much easier and cheaper to make boliviano-ringgit transactions indirectly, using the dollar as a “vehicle,” than to try to do those transactions directly. But all those indirect transactions make dollar markets even bigger, reinforcing the currency’s advantage.

Gita Gopinath, the first deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund, and Jeremy Stein, a professor of economics at Harvard, have described another feedback loop involving pricing. Because many goods are priced in dollars, dollar assets have relatively predictable purchasing power; this reinforces demand for these assets, which in turn makes it somewhat cheaper to borrow in dollars than in other currencies. And cheap dollar borrowing in turn gives businesses an incentive to limit their risks by pricing in dollars, again reinforcing the dollar’s advantage.

So what might dislodge the dollar from its special position? Not that long ago the euro seemed like a plausible alternative: Europe’s economy is huge, as are its financial markets. As a result, many people outside Europe hold euro assets and, when selling to Europe, set prices in euros. But one remaining U.S. advantage is the size of our bond market and the liquidity — the ease of buying or selling — that market provides.

Until its sovereign debt crisis in 2009, Europe seemed to have a comparably large bond market, since euro bonds issued by different governments seemed interchangeable and all paid about the same interest rate. Since then, however, fears of default have caused yields to diverge:

This means that there is no longer a euro bond market: There’s a German market, an Italian market and so on, none of them comparable in scale with America’s market.

What about China? China is a huge player in world trade, which you might think would make people want to hold a lot of yuan assets. But it is also an autocracy with a propensity for erratic policies — as evidenced by its current rejection of Western Covid vaccines and continuing adherence to an unsustainable strategy of disastrous lockdowns. Who wants to expose their wealth to a dictator’s whims?

And yes, the United States has to some extent weaponized the dollar against Vladimir Putin. But that’s not the kind of action that we can expect to become commonplace.

All in all, then, the dollar’s dominance still looks pretty secure — that is, unless America also ends up being run by an erratic autocrat, which I’m afraid looks like a real possibility in the not-too-distant future.

But here’s the thing: Even if I’m wrong, and the dollar does lose its dominance, it wouldn’t make that much difference. What, after all, does the United States gain from the dollar’s special role? I often read assertions that America’s ability to foist newly printed dollars on the rest of the world allows it to run persistent trade deficits. Folks, let me tell you about Australia:

The United States may be able to borrow slightly more cheaply, thanks to the dollar’s special role, and we get what amounts to a zero-interest loan from all the people holding dollar currency — mostly $100 bills — outside the country. But these are trivial advantages for a $24 trillion economy.

So is the dollar’s world dominance at risk? Probably not. And the truth is, it really doesn’t matter.

The most avidly followed sports event on earth, the FIFA World Cup, returns this fall — another chance to find out if what’s often been said about soccer is true: That 22 men chase a ball for 90 minutes, and the Germans always win.

At the last World Cup, in 2018, the Germans didn’t win. The French did, and they’ll be back for this year’s tournament in Qatar, along with their young superstar Kylian Mbappé. So will Argentina’s incomparable Leo Messi and Portugal’s icon Cristiano Ronaldo in what could be their World Cup swan songs. A new star is sure to rise into the footballing firmament this year — will it be Canada’s Alphonso Davies, born to Liberian parents in a Ghanaian refugee camp and raised in Alberta, now shining for Bayern Munich? And how will the Americans do after failing to qualify for the 2018 tournament?

These are some of the many reasons for fans to head to the 64 matches of the 2022 World Cup tournament in Qatar, where the desert heat has pushed the schedule back from its customary summertime window to Nov. 21 to Dec. 18.

For those planning to attend, the time to get tickets and a place to stay is now. But there are also some compelling reasons not to attend. Below, a primer on Qatar 2022: where to go, how to go and, crucially, should you even go at all.

Human rights concerns have clouded this year’s World Cup.

Concerns arose soon after Qatar was named host in 2010. As the tiny Persian Gulf nation rushed to build seven new soccer stadiums, an airport, transit system, hotels, apartments and other infrastructure, allegations quickly followed that many of the country’s 2 million migrant workers were being forced to endure deplorably dangerous conditions.

The human rights organization Amnesty International detailed “rampant” exploitation and abuse, with reports of migrant laborers being unpaid and working excessive hours, often in oppressive heat. The country responded to the scrutiny by introducing labor reforms in recent years, and tournament organizers say that they have improved conditions for workers.

The country’s treatment of L.G.B.T.Q. people has also sparked criticism. Qatar has said it will welcome L.G.B.T.Q. fans at the tournament, but the country’s laws make male homosexuality illegal and punishable by up to three years in prison. Qatar does not recognize same-sex marriage or civil partnerships, and demonstrating for gay rights is prohibited. Even while insisting that L.G.B.T.Q visitors would be accepted, a senior Qatari security official, Abdulaziz Abdullah Al Ansari, said this month that rainbow flags might be confiscated to “protect” fans.

Concerns over Qatar’s human rights record have spurred some of soccer’s leading figures to speak out. Lise Klaveness, the president of Norway’s soccer federation, scolded FIFA for allowing Qatar to host the tournament in a speech this month, calling it “unacceptable.” Gareth Southgate, the manager of England, called for assurances for the safety of traveling fans. “It would be horrible to think some of our fans feel they can’t go because they feel threatened or they’re worried about their safety,” he said.

A spokesman for the Qatari organizers said in an email that Qatar has hosted other sporting events since it was awarded the rights to the World Cup without incident. “Everyone will be welcome to Qatar in 2022,” he wrote. “FIFA and Qatar are committed to delivering a discrimination free tournament that is welcoming to all.”

So, you want to attend. How will this year’s World Cup tournament work?

This year’s World Cup comprises 32 teams, 31 of which have survived the two-year qualifying process. (The 32nd, Qatar, qualified automatically as hosts.) They are placed in eight groups of four teams each, with each team guaranteed at least three matches.

The top 16 advance to the knockout phase — followed by the quarterfinals and semifinals — with the world champion crowned at the grand finale at the 80,000-seat Lusail International Stadium in Lusail, a city just north of Doha, the country’s capital, on Dec. 18.

Qatar is by far the smallest country ever to host the tournament, so in some ways this should be the easiest World Cup to attend. All eight stadiums are within a 35-mile radius of Doha, so instead of needing to hop on planes and trains to follow their team over hundreds or even thousands of miles, fans at Qatar 2022 will hardly have to travel at all. In fact, five of the eight stadiums are accessible via the Doha Metro (shuttle buses will take fans to the outlying stadiums).

Even though the tournament will be played in November and December, it will still be hot, with an average high of 85 degrees at the start of the tournament and 75 by the end. But games will kick off in the late afternoon and evening, and all the stadiums (only one has a retractable roof) will be air-conditioned, using solar-powered ventilation and cooling systems designed to keep spectators comfortable.

How do you get tickets?

You can enter the ticket lottery until April 28 at 5 a.m., E.D.T. After that, FIFA will conduct a random selection draw, with successful applicants being notified starting May 31. You can apply for tickets to individual matches, or all matches a particular team will play. There is also a way to reserve provisional tickets if your team advances to the knockout phase.

Prices range from $70 to $220 for individual tickets to group matches and escalate through the knockout phase. Tickets for the championship final will cost from $600 to $1,600.

What about traveling to Qatar?

If you succeed in getting tickets, the next thing to do is get a Hayya Card — a mandatory all-purpose identification card for the World Cup visitor. The Hayya Card (Hayya means “let’s go”) not only acts as an entry visa to Qatar but it must be presented — in addition to your ticket — to get into the stadium on match days.

Several airlines fly from New York to Doha, including American, Finnair, Turkish and Royal Jordanian. Qatar Airways offers more than 100 weekly flights from 12 cities in the United States.

Qatar Airways also offers all-inclusive packages that come with match tickets, flights and accommodations. One package featuring tickets to all the U.S. matches (three group games plus a round-of-16 game, if the United States advances) is advertised from $6,950 per person. Other packages range from $4,050 to $7,300, for the one that includes tickets to the championship final.

As for the country’s coronavirus rules, Qatar currently requires adult visitors to show either proof of vaccination or a certificate of recovery to avoid quarantine, as well as negative results from a test taken within 48 hours of departure. Current in-country regulations require masking on public transport and in stadiums, stores and hotels. Proof of vaccination is required to enter many buildings, and travelers are required to have Ehteraz, a Covid-19 notification app, on their phones.

How about accommodations — can Qatar handle the influx?

Beds may be hard to come by, with just 130,000 rooms for the up to 1.5 million visitors expected over the tournament. Apartment complexes meant to house fans are still being built, many near expressways and in dusty industrial zones.

The Qatar 2022 website has an accommodations portal that is the best place to start your search for lodgings. The website features listings at hotels, apartments and villas or aboard two large cruise ships docked at Doha for the duration of the tournament. There is also an option to stay at “fan villages,” which the site describes as “a variety of casual camping and cabin-style accommodation for the avid fan,” accompanied by a photo of a tent amid vast sand dunes. “More information coming soon,” says the caption.

A recent search on the site for hotel rooms showed nothing available, a disappointment for those who’d fancy a room at the Four Seasons Doha. But even the lowly three-star listings showed no vacancies.

However, some apartments and villas were available. On the low end was an apartment in Al-Wakrah, a suburb of Doha, for $84 a night. On the high end, a villa in Doha was going for $920 a night.

Cabins aboard the MSC Poesia, moored at Doha port, start at $179 on the website; aboard the MSC World Europa they’re $347.

Airbnb had some bookings in Qatar for the World Cup, tending to consist of tents going for $100 a night or apartments starting at $500 a night. Some fans may have to resort to staying in the United Arab Emirates at Abu Dhabi, 330 miles from Doha, or Dubai, 390 miles away, and take a car, bus or plane to the game.

Any other tips for staying in Qatar?

Fans attending the World Cup should be mindful that while the country is making some allowances for the coming influx of tourists, Qatar is a conservative Muslim country and visitors should be aware of its laws and customs.

For instance, it is illegal to drink in public. During the World Cup, alcohol will be available in designated areas, like hotels and special “fan zones,” but public intoxication can carry a six-month jail sentence.

“Visitors (men as well as women) are expected to show respect for local culture by avoiding excessively revealing clothing in public,” the official Visit Qatar website advises. “It is generally recommended for men and women to ensure their shoulders and knees are covered.”

Public displays of affection between men and women are “frowned upon,” according to Visit Qatar.

Even if you are a super fan of soccer with the funds to travel, deciding whether to go to this year’s World Cup could be fraught. Remember, you can always wait for 2026, when the World Cup will be held in the United States, Canada and Mexico.

Follow New York Times Travel on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. And sign up for our weekly Travel Dispatch newsletter to receive expert tips on traveling smarter and inspiration for your next vacation. Dreaming up a future getaway or just armchair traveling? Check out our 52 Places for a Changed World for 2022.