How Billionaires Make Money in Home Ownership When Government Fails

Mnuchin has good reason to be happy - he is screwing people out of their assets

This 53 minute podcast, Homewreckers, goes into the details of how billionaires make money from middle class misery when the free market goes awry and government fails. This is one of the most depressing investigative journalism reports I can recall. It details the tactics that billionaires use to make hundreds of millions deceiving and exploiting average people. It shows that the only moral value that the billionaire class has is profit by any means, including deceit and illegal means. The rule of law is mostly irrelevant because it is an easily side-stepped joke. Law enforcement against billionaires is almost non-existent. Honesty and transparency by everyone involved is a total joke.

This shows just how cynical and corrupt our two-party system can be. The federal government failed. The rule of law failed. Average people were tricked, deceived, fooled and cheated out of their homes. To make it all worse, the podcast plays clips of the president telling his supporters how bad the housing situation is and then putting the people behind the mass misery into positions of power.

This is truly heart-breaking, so if you don't want to be depressed, don't listen to this. If you want to be at least somewhat informed about how the vicious game is played by the big guys, you have to listen to this.

My conclusions 

First and foremost, caveat emptor is the only defense the consumer has against the immorality of the ruthless profit motive running free and wild in corrupt, rigged markets. Do  not look to government for protection, relief or a level playing field. This podcast is well worth 53 minutes of a person's time. It shows once again why it is long past time for regime change. Both parties and their corrupt, morally bankrupt ideologies and incompetent ways of doing business of by and for business have got to go. we need government for the people, not for the corrupt wealthy.

Finally, this shows that the rich do not operate in a meritocracy, unless merit lies in corruption, and heartless lies, deceit, trickery and exploiting incompetent government.


My thanks goes to milo for bringing this sad but infuriating story to my attention.

American Authoritarian Kleptocracy Rising

The last few days have evinced more evidence that the president is moving aggressively toward a more irrational, anti-democratic and authoritarian form of government. The latest hate and incoherence relates to the president's continuing use of dark free speech (DFS)[1] to further polarize and divide Americans along political and racial lines. This looks to be part of the president's 2020 re-election strategy.

The Washington Post writes that Twitter considered one of the president's Tweets to be glorifying violence. In it, the president called for police brutality in response to riots in Minneapolis that had erupted after police there killed a black man in custody. The company limited public access to the toxic Tweet. The president flew into a rage, claiming it was censorship. He threatened that the company would be regulated as punishment. WaPo comments: "Trump and his allies again decried the move as censorship, promising to regulate the company a day after he signed an executive order that could open the door for the U.S. government to punish social-media sites for their handling of political speech online."

That move is blatantly irrational from the president's point of view. The punishment the president wants to impose is elimination of a law that protects companies like Facebook and Twitter from liability for people who post false or defamatory content on their sites. Although experts do not believe that the president has to legal power to unilaterally do that, if the law is eliminated or made to just go away, affected companies would need to be far more aggressive about blocking the kind of dark free speech content that the president routinely posts online.

In essence, the president is so enraged that he blindly wants to get rid of the law that protects companies from liability from his own lies and defamation. If that came to pass, Twitter would likely be forced to delete the president's account and ban him forever.

The New York Times writes:

"The executive order that Mr. Trump signed on Thursday seeks to strip liability protection in certain cases for companies like Twitter, Google and Facebook for the content on their sites, meaning they could face legal jeopardy if they allowed false and defamatory posts. Without a liability shield, they presumably would have to be more aggressive about policing messages that press the boundaries — like the president’s. 

That, of course, is not the outcome Mr. Trump wants. What he wants is the freedom to post anything he likes without the companies applying any judgment to his messages, as Twitter did this week when it began appending “get the facts” warnings to some of his false posts on voter fraud. Furious at what he called “censorship” — even though his messages were not in fact deleted — Mr. Trump is wielding the proposed executive order like a club to compel the company to back down. 

But the logic of Mr. Trump’s order is intriguing because it attacks the very legal provision that has allowed him such latitude to publish with impunity a whole host of inflammatory, harassing and factually distorted messages that a media provider might feel compelled to take down if it were forced into the role of a publisher that faced the risk of legal liability rather than a distributor that does not. 

Mr. Trump has long posted false and disparaging messages to his 80 million followers on Twitter, disregarding complaints about their accuracy or fairness. In recent weeks, he has repeatedly issued tweets that essentially falsely accused Joe Scarborough, the MSNBC host, of murdering a staff member in 2001 when he was a congressman. Mr. Scarborough was 800 miles away at the time and the police found no signs of foul play. The aide’s widower asked Twitter to delete the messages, but it refused."

To the president's Tweet, Twitter added “This Tweet violated the Twitter Rules about glorifying violence” in a gray box that hid the tweet from public view unless a user clicks to see it. Twitter also prevented users from liking the president’s tweet or sharing it without adding a comment. A company spokesman commented: “We’ve taken action in the interest of preventing others from being inspired to commit violent acts, but have kept the tweet on Twitter because it is important that the public still be able to see the Tweet given its relevance to ongoing matters of public importance.” Twitter is between a rock and a hard place.

Should the law just go away?

This situation raises a fascinating question. Should congress repeal the law that protects private online companies from liability for lies and defamation that users post online? In my opinion, unrestrained DFS constitutes the single most powerful tool that the president and political extremists of all stripes have at their disposal for getting what they want. The president relies heavily on DFS to build public support for his goal of establishing a generally weak central government that operates as some sort of police state that operates as a kleptocratic tyranny heavily tinged with vengeful Christian theocratic overtones.

What is the cost-benefit of allowing unfettered DFS in political speech? What is the cost-benefit of normalizing and acceptance of political lies, deceit, character assassination (defamation), crackpot conspiracy theories, anti-democratic norms, e.g., voter suppression, corruption and gross incompetence? What does each of us get that is good that outweighs the social bad that DFS causes?

Maybe I am an outlier, but I don't see any good in essentially all DFS. I do see a lot of personal, social, economic and democratic harm. What am I missing? Why should Twitter, Facebook and Google be protected from liability?


Footnote:
1. Dark free speech: Constitutionally or legally protected (1) lies and deceit to distract, misinform, confuse, polarize and/or demoralize, (2) unwarranted opacity to hide inconvenient truths, facts and corruption (lies and deceit of omission), (3) unwarranted emotional manipulation (i) to obscure the truth and blind the mind to lies and deceit, and (ii) to provoke irrational, reason-killing emotions and feelings, including fear, hate, anger, disgust, distrust, intolerance, cynicism, pessimism and all kinds of bigotry including racism, and (4) ideologically-driven motivated reasoning and other ideologically-driven biases that unreasonably distort reality and reason. (my label, my definition)

100,000

Mr. Spock : I've noticed that about your people, Doctor. You find it easier to understand the death of one than the death of a million. You speak about the objective hardness of the Vulcan heart, yet how little room there seems to be in yours.

STAR TREK: 

“The Immunity Syndrome”

DOES THIS NUMBER MEAN ANYTHING ANYMORE?


 DO YOU HAVE A GUT REACTION WHEN YOU SEE THIS NUMBER? 

DOES IT MATTER?

The View from a Social Scientist

Hey All,

I am a fairly new fan of Jonathan Haidt.  This article alarmed me more so than it encouraged me regarding the state of politics in the United States.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/05/jonathan-haidt-pandemic-and-americas-polarization/612025/


I see factions on Facebook and Disqus.  Social media is making us more tribal and emotional.  Less rational.  It creates experts out of high school dropouts.  Dunning Kruger run amok.

Our town page has members attacking each other over the virus.  Some taking this as a life threatening event while others treat it as some conspiracy theory.

President Dumb Ass is creating chaos with his tweets.  He's using the virus to scapegoat his political opposition.  He is using his office to turn the people against the media.

Questions:

Is this nation being set up for division?  Who benefits from that?  Will we turn on each other?

How bad can this get?

Or will we wake up as Americans?  Value our freedoms and not allow others to take power using such divisive and immoral tactics.

Can we learn to get along while at the same time disagreeing about issues.  Finding a way to compromise?  To listen to others and realize that the good of the nation also means the good of the people of that nation?  To admit that we were wrong?  Then apologize and learn from our mistakes?

Is Haidt too patient?  Are liberals too patient?  Can conservatives rid themselves of Trump and his divisive rhetoric?

As we see in other societies and learn from history those that seek to grab authoritarian power do not back down easily.  They will use every means at their disposal.

If the people don't stand up and fight it and instead are passive or take the high road are they just conceding to this evil.  That's really what it is.  It's evil.

Is Twitter making a stand about one of Trump's points a turning point?  Can the people of this nation back their freedom to not allow lies on their site.  To not allow a president to use their platform to cause division by lying with his tweets?

We can't stop the outlets they own from publishing propaganda.  We don't have to allow them free access to mass media to push more of it on the unsuspecting.

Trump's words today was scary.  It was an action of a dictator.  Demanding free speech while taking it away from others.  He has a right to the government not restricting his free speech.  He can not use his power and government power to restrict the free speech of others.  Twitter was within it's rights.  Trump was not.

Lot's of questions.  Answer one or none.  Give me your own thoughts and theories.

Thank you!

Ellabulldog

Should a Political Party be a Candidate Gatekeeper?

“The tragic paradox of the electoral route to authoritarianism is that democracy’s assassins use the very institutions of democracy—gradually, subtly, and even legally—to kill it. . . . . One of the great ironies of how democracies die is that the very defense of democracy is often used as a pretext for its subversion.” -- Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt commenting on the gatekeeper function of political parties to prevent the rise of demagogues, How Democracies Die, 2018


Demagogue: a political leader who seeks support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument

Some people are unhappy with their perception of the role the democratic party played in keeping Bernie Sanders from winning the 2016 nomination and in his withdrawal from the 2018 race. Criticism of the DNC and party insiders are accused of blocking Sanders. 

That raises the question of whether a party should play a gatekeeping role in selecting candidates for office. In their 2018 book, How Democracies Die, political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt commented on the gatekeeper function of political parties. Levitsky and Ziblatt are experts on how democracies fall to authoritarians. One political party function they pointed to was the failure of a political party to prevent the rise of demagogues. They considered a gatekeeping function of a party to be an important bulwark against the rise of authoritarian demagogues. Their rationale is that party insiders and elites usually have far more knowledge about a candidate and their character and competence than most average voters.

In 2016, the GOP did not have a gatekeeping function in place. A divisive demagogue wound up as the party's nominee and ultimately president. Other divisive demagogues who were not subject to party gatekeeping included Hitler and Mussolini. In both of those cases, the existing party structure was losing trust, vitality and public support. In those situations, party elites allowed the demagogues to gain power. They falsely believed that they could control the beasts they unleashed and use them to regain public support. The beasts ended up destroying the parties.

In both 2016 and 2020, most of the democratic party elites apparently were opposed to Sanders in his  run for the nomination. Increasing numbers of voters who register as independents appears to reflect a loss of trust, vitality and public support in the two main American parties. Nonetheless, the democratic party played a gatekeeping role in 2016 and arguably also in 2020. 

Some years ago, the San Diego democratic party failed to exercise a gatekeeping function and a sexual predator, Bob Filner, wound up as city mayor. Some time after taking office, Filner was publicly accused of sexual predation. In 2013 he wound up resigning in disgrace. The democratic party was so intent on winning the mayor's office that they ignored Filner's long history of sexual predation despite being fully aware of it. That failure of gatekeeping cost the party the mayor position and at least some public trust for some time.

Should a party play a gatekeeping role or not? Does it matter that a candidate like Sanders, a long time independent, was not a long time party member? Is it reasonable to believe that (i) party insiders generally know more about their candidates than the public, or (ii) can exert better judgment than average voters based on their knowledge and experience? 

Book Review: How Democracies Die

Demagogue: a political leader who seeks support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument.


In their 2018 book, How Democracies Die, Harvard political science professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt (L&Z) describe the various ways in which democracies die. For the last 15 years, L&Z have studied democracy deaths as the main focus of their research.

What they find is that these days, democracies often do not die after a military coup. Instead, many modern authoritarians or demagogues gain power by striking deals with existing political parties who are often under stress and losing influence. Hitler and Mussolini took that route. In both cases, the existing order was confident that they could control the demagogues they helped to legitimize.

In this regard, L&Z see political parties and especially their leaders and insiders as gatekeepers who are in a position to prevent legitimizing and/or the rise to power of demagogues. L&Z comment on this legal route to power: “The tragic paradox of the electoral route to authoritarianism is that democracy’s assassins use the very institutions of democracy—gradually, subtly, and even legally—to kill it. . . . . One of the great ironies of how democracies die is that the very defense of democracy is often used as a pretext for its subversion.”

American democracy vs. Trump: L&Z write to express their deep concern that President Trump, a demagogue in their view, could rise to become a full-blown authoritarian. They find that two critical norms that have kept American demagogues in the past from gaining power have largely collapsed. One weakened norm is “mutual toleration” which exists when political parties accept each other as legitimate political opposition. The other norm is “forbearance” wherein politicians exercise restraint in using power and institutional prerogatives. L&Z calls these norms the “soft guardrails of American democracy.”

L&Z argue the erosion of these norms began in the 1980s and by the time Obama was elected in 2008, “many Republicans, in particular, questioned the legitimacy of their Democratic rivals and had abandoned the forbearance strategy for a strategy of winning by any means necessary.” They point out that Trump accelerated the trend, but didn't initially cause it. L&Z see extreme polarization as a root cause of the weakening of the norms that helped defend democracy from demagogues: “And if one thing is clear from studying breakdowns throughout history, it’s that extreme polarization can kill democracies.”

Some may recall that the 2018 presidential greatness survey by experts ranked Trump as the most polarizing president in US history. 2018 was the first year that the question had been asked. It was asked in view of the obvious polarizing effect that Trump had on American politics and society.

The tyrant test: L&Z find that authoritarians tend to use the same rhetoric and tactics in making their run for power. Keying off of earlier research of democratic breakdowns by political scientist Juan Linz, L&Z articulate four behavioral warning signs that help identify an authoritarian. Evidence of any one of the four behaviors in words or actions point to an authoritarian politician.

The four signs are evident “when a politician (1) rejects the democratic rules of the game, (2) denies the legitimacy of opponents, (3) tolerates or encourages violence, or (4) indicates a willingness to curtail the civil liberties of opponents, including the media.” Trump has shown behaviors that fit all four of the warning signs. For example, he rejected the democratic rules of the game by claiming he would not accept election results if he lost the 2016 election and falsely claimed there was massive voter fraud. Similarly, he denied the legitimacy of Hillary Clinton by calling her a criminal and calling for her to be imprisoned. He also publicly tolerated and encouraged violence by his supporters, e.g., “If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would 'ya? Seriously. Just knock the hell out of them. I promise you, I will pay the legal fees. I promise you.”

L&Z argue that the republican party has abdicated essentially all responsibility to try to keep the authoritarian demagogue Trump from gaining power or undermining democracy. We are undergoing the kind of stealth attack on democracy that people have a hard time seeing. L&Z point out that there have always been about 30-40% of Americans who were ready to support a populist demagogue. Trump’s populist demagogic rhetoric and behavior, coupled with the the republican party’s abdication of responsibility to defend democracy, make America’s current political situation look truly frightening.

Warning: L&Z point out that opposition to demagogues must be legal. The demagogue can use anything illegal by the opposition as an excuse to further undermine democratic freedoms and the rule of law. In other words, Antifa and any other pro-violence groups that want to help defend democracy need to cool their jets and get their act together. Stupidity such as violence plays into the tyrant’s hands.

B&B orig: 4/15/19 DP orig 4/22/19; DP reposted 5/27/20