The pioneering spirit driving Elon Musk’s SpaceX to prepare for life on Mars is captivating, but a compelling alternative suggests we should use this same spirit to heal and nurture our home planet.
The sun, our local star, is central to this Earth-centric vision. According to NASA, Earth receives approximately 174 petawatts of incoming solar radiation in the upper atmosphere.
By efficiently harnessing just a fraction of this energy, we could significantly reduce our dependence on environmentally harmful fossil fuels.
Over the past decade, the cost of solar power has dramatically decreased and, with improvements in energy storage, (like Tesla’s Powerwall units, for example), solar energy is becoming a reliable, 24/7 power source.
Ephemeralization: Doing More with Less
However, the shift towards sustainable living extends beyond changing our energy source. This is where the principles of R. Buckminster Fuller, a visionary architect, systems theorist, author, designer, and inventor, come into play.
Fuller proposed the concept of “doing more with less,” forecasting a future where technological advancements lead to “ephemeralization,” a scenario in which we could fulfill everyone’s needs using fewer resources. This notion could help pave the way for a more environmentally sustainable world that also addresses issues of scarcity and inequality.
Building Efficiency: Embracing Integrative Design
Our journey towards a sustainable future is complemented by the principles of “integrative design,” a concept championed by Amory Lovins, co-founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute.
Lovins’ approach focuses on a holistic systems design where individual components work together in synergy, maximizing energy and resource efficiency.
This concept applies prominently to building efficiency, an area where Lovins has made significant contributions. By considering elements such as orientation, insulation, window placement, and ventilation, buildings can be designed to maintain comfortable temperatures with minimal active heating or cooling.
This “passive house” approach dramatically reduces energy consumption, making buildings part of the climate solution rather than a source of the problem.
Lovins’ approach also applies to manufacturing and industry, which, together, account for over 40% of total U.S. energy consumption.
By redesigning industrial processes to minimize waste, utilize waste heat, and prioritize energy-efficient equipment, Lovins argues that industries can dramatically reduce their energy use without sacrificing output or quality.
Taken to the furthest logical conclusion, the principles of integrative design could revolutionize how we conceive of energy use across all sectors.
Circular Economy and Soil Regeneration: Emulating Nature’s Cycle
To create a genuinely sustainable society, we need to redefine our economic systems and our relationship with the land. Our shift must be from a linear economic model—where we extract, use, and discard resources—to a circular one that mimics nature’s endless cycles of growth, decay, and renewal.
The Ellen MacArthur Foundation has been instrumental in leading efforts to establish an economy that is restorative and regenerative by design.
A key part of this shift involves regenerating our agricultural systems. Soil health is vital for maintaining biodiversity, water quality, and carbon sequestration.
Regenerative agriculture, including practices like cover cropping, no-till farming, and composting, can restore soil health and enhance its capacity to absorb carbon from the atmosphere.
According to the Rodale Institute, if current farmlands globally shifted to regenerative organic practices, it could sequester more than 100% of current annual CO2 emissions. Transitioning towards such practices could significantly mitigate climate change and rejuvenate our food systems.
Economic Justice: Power to All
An Earth-centric future also calls for economic justice. In a world powered by the sun, where resources are used wisely, waste is minimized, and the soil is restored, basic needs—such as healthcare, education, and equal opportunity—could be universally provided.
Establishing these rights is not just about altruism—it’s about creating a society where every individual can fully contribute to the collective good.
Mars Can Wait, But Can Earth?
The dream of a city on Mars is undoubtedly inspiring, but we must not overlook the opportunities beneath our feet. Our planet is not merely a stepping stone to the stars; it is a star in its own right.
Mars can wait, but can the Earth? With the elements for a sustainable revolution already within our grasp, it’s up to us to weave them together, creating a future that embraces both sustainability and economic justice.
The Long Road to an Earthly Future
The real odyssey, the true journey that demands our audacity and pioneering spirit, lies not in the red sands of a distant planet or under the shadows of unfamiliar stars. Instead, it unravels here, beneath the azure sky and upon the rich, verdant expanses of our home, Earth.
This journey may be long and fraught with challenges. The road toward a sustainable, just, and abundant future will require us to reassess our values, reinvent our systems, and redefine our relationship with the environment.
It calls for us to weave together principles of ephemeralization, integrative design, circular economy, soil regeneration, and economic justice into the fabric of our societies.
Yet, even as we embark on this formidable quest, we should remember that the destination is not merely a point in the future. It is a process, a continuous evolution that offers us countless opportunities for growth, learning, and reinvention.
Every step we take towards this envisioned future—whether it’s a solar panel installed, a passive house built, or a plot of land regenerated—brings us closer to realizing our potential as a species.
Unlike the cold, alien landscapes of Mars, the Earth provides us with a setting that is intimately familiar yet brimming with untapped potential.
We have the knowledge, the technology, and the means. All we need now is the collective will to channel our exploratory spirit inward, to heal, nurture, and transform the world we already have.
So let the red planet wait. For now, we have an extraordinary world under our feet, a world that we are yet to fully comprehend and appreciate.
Our gaze should not be fixed on distant celestial bodies, but on the potential lying dormant in our societies and within ourselves. The future of humanity is not just out there in the cosmos, but also right here, on the third rock from the Sun. The Earth and its promise of a sustainable and equitable future, is real, and attainable.
The Federal Reserve has begun its most challenging inflation-fighting campaign in four decades. And a lot is at stake for consumers, companies and the U.S. economy.
The challenge for the Fed is to do this without sending the economy into recession. Some economists and observers are already raising the specter of stagflation, which means high inflation coupled with a stagnating economy.
As an expert on financial markets, I believe there’s good news and bad when it comes to the Fed’s upcoming battle against inflation. Let’s start with the bad.
In all, Congress spent US$4.6 trillion trying to counter the economic effects of COVID-19 and the lockdowns. While that may have been necessary to support struggling businesses and people, it unleashed an unprecedented bump in the U.S. money supply.
At the same time, supply chains have been in disarray since early in the pandemic. Lockdowns and layoffs led to closures of factories, warehouses and shipping ports, and shortages of key components like microchips have made it harder to finish a wide range of goods, from cars to fridges. These factors have contributed to a worldwide shortage of goods and services.
Any economist will tell you that when demand exceeds supply, prices will rise too. And to make matters worse, businesses around the world have been struggling to hire more workers, which has further exacerbated supply chain problems. The labor shortage also worsens inflation because workers are able to demand higher wages, which is typically paid for with higher prices on the goods they make and the services they provide.
And now Russia’s war in Ukraine is compounding the problems. This is mostly because of the conflict’s impact on the supply of gas and oil, but also because of the sanctions placed on Russia’s economy and the ancillary effects that will ripple throughout the global economy.
The latest inflation data, released on March 10, 2022, is for the month of February and therefore doesn’t account for the impact of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which sent U.S. gas prices soaring. The prices of other commodities, such as wheat, also spiked. Russia and Ukraine produce a quarter of the world’s wheat supply.
Inflation won’t be slowing anytime soon
And so the Fed has little choice but to raise interest rates – one of its few tools available to curb inflation.
But now it’s in a very tough situation. After arguably coming late to the inflation-fighting party, the Fed is now tasked with a job that seems to get harder by the day. That’s because the main drivers of today’s inflation – the war in Ukraine, the global shortage of goods and workers – are outside of its control.
So even dramatic rate hikes over the coming months, perhaps increasing rates from about zero now to 1%, will be unlikely to make an appreciable impact on inflation. This will remain true at least until supply chains begin to return to normal, which is still a ways off.
Cars and condos
There are a few areas of the U.S. economy where the Fed could have more of an impact on inflation – eventually.
For example, demand for goods that are typically purchased with a loan, such as a house or car, is more closely tied to interest rates. The Fed’s policy of ultra-low interest rates is one key factor that has driven inflation in those sectors in recent months. As such, an increase in borrowing costs through higher interest rates should prompt a drop in demand, thus reducing inflation.
But changing consumer behavior can take time, and it’ll require more than a quarter-point increase in rates at the Fed. So consumers should expect prices to continue to climb at an above-normal pace for some time.
Higher interest rates also tend to reduce stock prices, as other investments like bonds may become more attractive to investors. This in turn may lead people invested in stock markets to reduce their spending because they feel less wealthy, which may help reduce overall demand and inflation. The effect is minimal, however, and would take time before you see the impact in prices.
That’s why I think it’s unlikely the U.S. will experience stagflation – as it did in the 1970s and early 1980s. A very aggressive increase in interest rates could possibly induce a recession, and lead to stagflation, but by sapping economic activity it could also bring down inflation. At the moment, a recession seems unlikely.
In my view, what the Fed is beginning to do now is less taking a big bite out of inflation and more about signaling its intent to begin the inflation battle for real. So don’t expect overall prices to come down for quite a while.
How do things really get done (or more often not) in Washington D.C.?
In a new video from Robert Reich, former secretary of labor and accomplished author, the sad subject of so-called ’gridlock’ in government is addressed. This perspective is particularly useful and helpful to consider since this year is an election year.
There’s an unfortunate lack of understanding regarding how things actually work and, more importantly what can be done about it.
Inequality Media, the Org, led by Robert Reich, that is responsible for this content, is putting out clear and incisive messages on topics like this on a weekly, sometimes daily basis. Getting these kinds of valuable messages out to places like YouTube, TikTok and social media is important at anytime. Now, in such a critical moment in our history, it’s essential.
Why doesn’t Congress get anything done?
Well, one chamber actually does. Hundreds of bills have been passed by the House of Representatives, but have been blocked from even getting a vote in the Senate. Bills like The Freedom to Vote Act, The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, The Equality Act, Background checks for gun sales, Reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, The Protecting the Right to Organize Act, The Build Back Better Act. The list goes on.
So why aren’t these crucial bills getting a vote in the Senate? Because the filibuster makes it impossible.
All told, the House passed over 200 bills in 2021 that have not been taken up in the Senate. Everything from investing in rural education to preventing discrimination against pregnant workers to protecting seniors from scams – bills that have real, tangible benefits for the public; bills that have widespread public support.
So don’t believe the media narrative that Congress is trapped in hopeless gridlock and both sides are to blame. One chamber of Congress, led by Democrats, is passing important legislation and delivering for the people. But Republicans in the Senate, and a handful of corporate Democrats, are hell-bent on grinding the gears of government to a halt.
Why are Senate Republicans doing this? Because their midterm strategy depends on it. Republicans are blocking crucial legislation so they can point to Democrats’ supposed inability to get anything done, and claim they’ll be able to deliver if you give them majorities.
A new analysis finds that the 704 billionaires in the U.S. now own more wealth than the bottom half of Americans—roughly 165 million people.
During the first two years of the coronavirus pandemic, the collective wealth of billionaires in the United States grew by a staggering $1.7 trillion as Covid-19 killed millions of people across the globe and threw entire nations into turmoil, worsening extreme poverty, hunger, and other preexisting crises.
“We can’t accept an economy and tax code that allows billionaires to hoard trillions while working families struggle.”
Released Friday to coincide with the second anniversary of the World Health Organization’s official pandemic declaration for Covid-19, the latest billionaire fortune analysis by Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF) finds that the 704 billionaires in the U.S. now own more combined wealth than the 165 million people in the bottom half of the country’s wealth distribution.
“For billionaires, it’s been two years of raking in the riches, while for most families it’s been two years of fear, frustration, and financial worry,” ATF executive director Frank Clemente said in a statement.
The new analysis stresses that billionaires’ pandemic windfall “may never be taxed” because it consists of unrealized capital gains, which are not subject to taxation under current U.S. law. As one possible solution, ATF voices support for Sen. Ron Wyden’s (D-Ore.) proposed Billionaires Income Tax, legislation that would impose an annual levy on ultra-wealthy Americans’ unrealized gains from tradable assets such as stocks.
“The rising asset values billionaires have enjoyed over the past two years are not taxable unless the assets are sold,” ATF explains. “But billionaires don’t need to sell assets to benefit from their increased value: they can live off money borrowed at cheap rates secured against their rising fortunes. And when all those wealth gains are passed along to the next generation, they entirely disappear for tax purposes.”
This is why we need Congress to pass a Billionaires Income Tax.
It will tax billionaire wealth gains every year, just like workers’ wages are taxed. And it would raise $557 billion—more than enough to cover the historic clean energy investments @POTUS has proposed, for example.
— Americans For Tax Fairness (@4TaxFairness) March 11, 2022
While Democrats in Congress considered a tax on billionaires as part of their Build Back Better package, that legislation was tanked by a handful of corporate Democrats—including Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.)—and a unified Republican caucus.
“Why should our economic system allow billionaires to hoard wealth unchecked, letting almost all of it go tax-free?”
Earlier this month, Manchin floated a further watered-down version of the Build Back Better proposal that calls for tax reforms targeting the wealthy and corporations, but it’s unclear whether the West Virginia Democrat would accept a tax on billionaires.
“Working families pay what they owe in taxes each paycheck. Billionaires generally pay little or nothing in taxes on these extraordinary gains in wealth,” Clemente said Friday. “Congress should enact a Billionaires Income Tax to directly tax these wealth gains as income each year, so that billionaires begin to pay their fair share of taxes. Such a reform is not yet part of President Biden’s investment and tax legislation now being revised by Congress, but it should be.”
According to ATF’s new analysis, the biggest billionaire winners during the coronavirus pandemic’s first two years were:
Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, who saw his net worth skyrocket by $209 billion;
Google co-founder Larry Page, whose fortune grew by $63 billion; and
Google co-founder Sergey Brin, whose wealth increased by $60 billion.
“Not one of the 15 richest U.S. billionaires gained less than $10 billion,” ATF noted on Twitter, pointing out that during the same two-year period 80 million Americans were infected by Covid-19 and nearly a million were killed by the virus.
“We can’t accept an economy and tax code that allows billionaires to hoard trillions while working families struggle to afford healthcare, childcare, education, and housing,” the group added. “It’s wrong, and we can do better.”
Originally published on Common Dreams by JAKE JOHNSON and republished under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Bitcoin and Crypto’s reached a major turning point: why is cryptocurrency worth anything?
In a recent interview clip Jack Dorsey quietly states his opinion on the difference between people who “get” blockchain and crypto, and those that will forever be married to the past:
This is the simply stated portion that says it all:
“People who have questions in the world, people who have curiosity (and are) recognizing that the current systems, wether they be corporate financial systems or the government financial systems just aren’t working for them…”
Although the context of his statement is regarding bitcoin as the native currency for the internet, and in particular how people are responding to the fact that financial systems “just aren’t working for them” it is, nevertheless, a perfect statement of how the world is changing.
It has already changed into two distinct groups: those that are clinging to the status quo, since it has worked very well for them, and those that want to find a new and better way, because, in most cases, the current system did not work for them.
It’s important to realize that this statement is not coming from a disgruntled outsider, but from the hugely successful founder of Square, now called Block.
The fact that a large group of highly successful business leaders, such as Jack Dorsey and Elon Musk, although benefiting massively from the current financial systems, are at the same time embracing a new way of thought and action for the future, is at the crux of the issues addressed in this post.
Buffet vs Musk & Dorsey and the zero sum mindset of Malthusian Capitalism
There is a war waging between those that are open to, and welcoming of, bitcoin, crypto, blockchain, DeFi and other new financial innovations and those that reject all of it and would like nothing more than to see it stopped, by any means necessary.
The derision, insults and disdain lobbed at bitcoin, crypto and anyone that believes in them, by the “old guard” epitomized by Warren Buffet and Charlie Munger are now well known and documented:
A few quotes:
“Probably rat poison squared.” — Warren Buffett in Fox Business interview at 2018 meeting
“I think I should say modestly that the whole damn development is disgusting and contrary to the interests of civilization” – Charlie Munger vice chairman at Berkshire Hathaway
“I certainly didn’t invest in crypto. I’m proud of the fact I’ve avoided it. It’s like a venereal disease or something. I just regard it as beneath contempt.” – Charlie Munger vice chairman at Berkshire Hathaway
Interestingly, if you look deeper at the interviews and quotes, you’d see that, in spite of the headline grabbing hyperbole, it’s the price speculation that is at the heart of the criticism.
The comments that crypto and bitcoin “don’t produce anything” are ridiculous on their face, as if the fiat dollar “produces” products, services or anything else.
Oh, wait, the dollar does “produce” inflation (loss in value), and has done so very dependably over the last 100+ years.
Take a stat so well known that it is almost a cliché, any way you put it: a 2013 U.S. dollar (the year the federal reserve was created, not coincidentally) would be worth more than 16x what a dollar is worth today. One has to ask where that value is now?
Bitcoin, however, has over time only gained value. A lot. If bitcoin is rat poison, maybe the fiat system and the federal reverse are the rat?
100 year old billionaires are, aparently, not inclined to speak from enlightened self-interest. Or, to be kind, perhaps they are blinded by the success they enjoyed in a system that favors anyone at the top of the pyramid, one built on value theft?
One very big caveat, however, is clearly that the “everything bubble” is bursting, price speculation always ends in price crashes, and the massive gains in the value of various cryptocurrencies are a symptom of a larger systemic emergency, rather than a quality inherent to crypto itself. There’s that.
The gap between this kind of thinking vs. that of the forward looking cryptocurrency proponents, and what they consider to be positive innovations, is vast. In a time where divisive thought is nearly ubiquitous this is not news.
However, the fact that the legions of those that “get it” are as large as they are, and that they are constantly growing, has clearly taken the debate past the point of no return.
To get the full view of this divide it’s important to look also at just how the nearly 100 year old duo of Buffet & Munger got to be the “legends” that they are.
All the best known names they are associated with, from the initial Berkshire Hathaway purchase in 1962 to more recent investments in companies such as CocaCola, GEICO Insurance, RJ Reynolds Tobacco, Sees Candy, Clayton Homes and so on, paint a clear picture of extreme hierarchal and exploitative capitalism that is solely based on making themselves and shareholders rich, and doing it on the backs of consumers.
In an example of the thinking of those that do not worship the duo, in The Nation, David Dayen wrote: “America isn’t supposed to allow moats, much less reward them. Our economic system, we claim, is founded on free and fair competition. We have laws over a century old designed to break up concentrated industries, encouraging innovation and risk-taking. In other words, Buffett’s investment strategy should not legally be available, to him or anyone else.”
Exactly this kind of double standard, corrupt to the core, is built on systemic greed founded on a Malthusian “zero-sum mindset”. This is what has led millions to conclude that the system just isn’t working for them.
Being championed ad nausea for this lifetime of “achievement” is part and parcel of the status quo that many, from many in the 99% to the “nouveau 1%”, such as Elon Musk, Jack Dorsey, Vitalik Buterin and many others, are actively seeking alternatives to.
That distinction, being rich and powerful and yet not satisfied with the legacy of corruption and greed, is at the heart of the new wave of thought that has made bitcoin, crypto and DeFi a force to be reckoned with.
Moreover, seeing the state of the world that centuries of this kind of thinking has engendered, it’s natural for the young and more enlightened to want to search for other ways for things to work, ways that perhaps champion something other than monopolistic greed and exploitation.
In a recent Interview Elon Musk addressed precisely this issue – how many in the current system are focused on prospering at the expense of others and maintaining a zero-sum mindset. In the clip he outlines how important it is to understand the failure of that approach.
The idea that crypto will disappear is wishful thinking by those that cling to the systems of the past
A clip of Harrison Ford speaking at the Global Climate Action Summit was banned on some platforms as incendiary. Why? Because he passionately accuses those that are financially linked to fossil fuels of working to spread disinformation and misinformation, in order to perpetuate their massive incomes, even while the planet is on the brink of climate disaster.
Blocking this opinion, from a rich and famous film star, no less, is typical in the way that the established system works to suppress the idea that you should do anything about the fact that “it’s just not working” for you.
This is the same divide, mentioned above, that is nearly all pervasive today, but will never stop innovation in thinking about financial systems. It will not stop DeFi or DAOs or crypto or bitcoin.
It will not stop sustainable energy from becoming an ever bigger part of the world’s energy infrastructure. The point of going back has long since passed.
How money works according to Musk
Jack Dorsey has an understated and somehow “quiet” way of expressing revolutionary ideas. Elon Musk, on the other hand, is well known for controversial and flamboyant statements, and especially tweets.
But to get a taste of just how radical his thinking really is, particularly to those that disagree, you have to dig deeper into lengthy interviews, such as those with Lex Fridman, where he reveals his thinking more specifically on money, crypto and the governments role in the system of money.
Coming from the wealthiest person on earth, some may find it odd, yet his thoughts on crypto vs fiat money are well documented. It’s just this kind of stance, taken by so many in the “new” establishment at the top of the current financial pyramid, who also see the necessity for change toward new ideas and systems that can so away with the worst of the status quo, well represented above by Buffet & Munger and other “crypto haters”.
Government is a corporation in the limit
In yet another interview excerpt, Musk goes even deeper into his belief that – in his exact words: “if you don’t like corporations should really hate governments”
While this particular statement arose out of a spat with Senator Elizabeth Warren regarding taxes, the overall concept of challenging the status quo and the, clearly failed, systems perpetuated, remains in play.
Web3, and how Web2 and legacy financial structures are linked
Although fraught with infighting – the typical bitcoin vs. Ethereum vs. Doge vs. Shiba Inu internal debates and criticisms are not on the magnitude of the division between those that generally support and benefit from, for example, status quo financial structure and fossil fuel business, vs those that favor Blockchain and Sustainable energy.
Further, the spirit of the clash between Web2 and Web3 rests not on the tech or the systems themselves, which it can be argued are the same, but on the beliefs and intent of each camp.
The surveillance capitalism business models of web2, epitomized by Facebook and Google are diametrically opposed to the spirit and stated goals of web3, just as bitcoin was created out of a time that, not coincidentally, corresponded to the 2008 crash and crisis born of the greed and corruption of the legacy economic establishment.
There are two distinct camps that have emerged.
Those, such as Tesla and Elon Musk, that reject the traditional holy grail of shareholder value and instead embrace, for example, a more enlightened mission “to accelerate the transition to sustainable energy”. This aligns with any individual choosing the support crypto as a “Hodler” or at least believer, vs. those that support the legacy systems of finance, the fossil fuel industrial complex and Web2’s exploitative business model.
This divide is the ultimate test of our time and it will only grow in stature and importance.
The correspondence between forward looking innovation in all human thought, communication and action is already too big to stop and cannot be wished away.
There will undoubtedly be setbacks to these new directions, and there will be attacks using more than insults, such as those quoted above, but the time for the unstoppable force to be quelled is long since past. Coke and a smile? No thanks.
In a new video from Robert Reich, former secretary of labor and accomplished author, the phenomena we are all experiencing on a daily basis, such as incredible high gas prices, crazy energy prices, more out-of-pocket at the grocery store, and what sure looks like price gouging and price hikes on almost everything, he takes on the root of it all, in other words: Inflation.
Naturally, with all of this being so obvious to you and me there’s no shortage of folks to explain the purported causes, from media outlets like The Washington Post, to Biden administration officials and pundits from left, right and center.
One explanation you will seldom hear, however, is that much of the pain we are experiencing is due to monopoly power, the inequality growing out of the economic concentration of the American economy and the ever increasing concentration of financial and market power to a relative handful of big corporations.
This perspective is not only refreshingly direct, but it actually has a remedy attached, unlike the usual reasons given, such as economic policy, government spending, irresponsible actions by the federal government and federal reserve and so on. While all of these are certainly good candidates for finger pointing, they generally have only one response attached that is suggested as a remedy: higher interest rates.
“How can this structural problem be fixed? Fighting corporate concentration with more aggressive antitrust enforcement. Biden has asked the Federal Trade Commission to investigate oil companies, and he’s appointed experienced antitrust lawyers to both the FTC and the Justice Department.”
– Robert Reich
The idea that corporate greed, massive corporate profits that keep rising, in spite of supply chain disruptions and other issues, could be at the root of the problems, and that aggressive use of antitrust law might just be an appropriate response to the deeper structural issue is spot on.
A real change via antitrust might help to reinstate tough competition, weed out greedy businesses and even slow down the increasing consolidation of the economy, and the concept comes across as a welcome revelation, or at least beats a job and economy crushing series of Paul Volcker-style (huge) interest rate hikes.
There’s an even bigger challenge on the horizon, however, which is the sheer size of the biggest tech firms, who make the companies mentioned in the video, such as Coke, Pepsi, Procter & Gamble, meat conglomerates and the pharmaceutical industry seem tiny by comparison. As noted by the Wall Street Journal, during the pandemic the behemoths such as Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft have surged.
This is evidence of even less competition than in the sectors mention and presented in the video, and yes, the energy sector, consumer goods, food prices are all showing little competition and that situation is getting worse.
At least we have Mark Zuckerberg, from a recent YouTube interview with Lex Fridman, with his sunny personality shining through, saying that “what if playing with your friends is the point [of life]?, and further “I think over time, as we get more technology, the physical world is becoming less of a percent of the real world, and I think that opens up a lot of opportunities for people because you can you can work in different places you can stay closer to people who are in different places removing barriers of geography”. At least, then, there’s that. Thanks Mark.
The video text reads well also on the page. Charts, graphics and the charismatic voice of Robert Reich are worth the watch, but here is the full text, in case you prefer:
Inflation! Inflation! Everyone’s talking about it, but ignoring one of its biggest causes: corporate concentration.
Now, prices are undeniably rising. In response, the Fed is about to slow the economy — even though we’re still at least 4 million jobs short of where we were before the pandemic, and millions of American workers won’t get the raises they deserve. Republicans haven’t wasted any time hammering Biden and Democratic lawmakers about inflation. Don’t fall for their fear mongering.
Everybody’s ignoring the deeper structural reason for price increases: the concentration of the American economy into the hands of a few corporate giants with the power to raise prices.
If the market were actually competitive, corporations would keep their prices as low as possible as they competed for customers. Even if some of their costs increased, they would do everything they could to avoid passing them on to consumers in the form of higher prices, for fear of losing business to competitors.
But that’s the opposite of what we’re seeing. Corporations are raising prices even as they rake in record profits. Corporate profit margins hit record highs last year. You see, these corporations have so much market power they can raise prices with impunity.
So the underlying problem isn’t inflation per se. It’s a lack of competition. Corporations are using the excuse of inflation to raise prices and make fatter profits.
Take the energy sector. Only a few entities have access to the land and pipelines that control the oil and gas powering most of the world. They took a hit during the pandemic as most people stayed home. But they are more than making up for it now, limiting supply and ratcheting up prices.
Or look at consumer goods. In April 2021, Procter & Gamble raised prices on staples like diapers and toilet paper, citing increased costs in raw materials and transportation. But P&G has been making huge profits. After some of its price increases went into effect, it reported an almost 25% profit margin. Looking to buy your diapers elsewhere? Good luck. The market is dominated by P&G and Kimberly-Clark, which—NOT entirely coincidentally—raised its prices at the same time.
Another example: in April 2021, PepsiCo raised prices, blaming higher costs for ingredients, freight, and labor. It then recorded $3 billion in operating profits through September. How did it get away with this without losing customers? Pepsi has only one major competitor, Coca-Cola, which promptly raised its own prices. Coca-Cola recorded $10 billion in revenues in the third quarter of 2021, up 16% from the previous year.
Food prices are soaring, but half of that is from meat, which costs 15% more than last year. There are only four major meat processing companies in America, which are all raising their prices and enjoying record profits. Get the picture?
The underlying problem is not inflation. It’s corporate power. Since the 1980s, when the U.S. government all but abandoned antitrust enforcement, two-thirds of all American industries have become more concentrated. Most are now dominated by a handful of corporations that coordinate prices and production. This is true of: banks, broadband, pharmaceutical companies, airlines, meatpackers, and yes, soda.
Corporations in all these industries could easily absorb higher costs — including long overdue wage increases — without passing them on to consumers in the form of higher prices. But they aren’t. Instead, they’re using their massive profits to line the pockets of major investors and executives — while both consumers and workers get shafted.
How can this structural problem be fixed? Fighting corporate concentration with more aggressive antitrust enforcement. Biden has asked the Federal Trade Commission to investigate oil companies, and he’s appointed experienced antitrust lawyers to both the FTC and the Justice Department.
So don’t fall for Republicans’ fear mongering about inflation. The real culprit here is corporate power.
Early in 2020, as the pandemic gripped the nation, JPMorgan Chase offered to help customers weather the crisis by taking a temporary pause on mortgage, auto and credit card payments. Chase’s CEO, Jamie Dimon, sounded sympathetic about a year later as he offered broader reflections on what was ailing the country. “Americans know that something has gone terribly wrong,” he wrote in a letter to shareholders. “Many of our citizens are unsettled, and the fault line for all this discord is a fraying American dream — the enormous wealth of our country is accruing to the very few. In other words, the fault line is inequality.”
But even as those words were published, the bank had quietly begun to unleash a lawsuit blitz against many of its struggling customers. Starting in early 2020 and continuing to today, Chase has filed thousands of lawsuits against credit card customers who have fallen behind on their payments.
Chase had stopped pursuing credit card lawsuits in 2011, in the wake of the last major economic downturn, after regulators found that the company was filing tens of thousands of flimsy suits, sometimes overstating what customers owed. Rather than being backed by extensive billing records to document the debts, according to the regulators, the suits were typically filed with a short affidavit from one of a half-dozen Chase employees in one office in San Antonio who vouched for the accuracy of the bank’s information in thousands of suits.
Chase “filed lawsuits and obtained judgments against consumers using deceptive affidavits and other documents that were prepared without following required procedures,” the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau concluded in 2015. At times, Chase employees signed affidavits “without personal knowledge of the signer, a practice commonly referred to as ‘robo-signing.’” According to the CFPB’s findings, there were mistakes in about 10% of cases Chase won and the judgments “contained erroneous amounts that were greater than what the consumers legally owed.”
Chase neither admitted nor denied the CFPB’s findings, but it agreed, as part of a consent order, to provide significant evidence to make its cases in the future. The company also agreed it would provide “relevant information and documentation maintained by [Chase] to support their claims” in cases — the vast majority of those it filed — in which customers did not respond to the lawsuit.
But that provision expired on New Year’s Day 2020. And since then the bank has gone back to bringing lawsuits much as it did before 2011, according to lawyers who have defended Chase customers.
“From what I can see, nothing has changed,” said Cliff Dorsen, a consumer-rights attorney in Georgia who represents Chase credit card customers.
Chase declined to make executives available for interviews. It said in a statement that the timing of the resumption of its credit card lawsuits was just a coincidence. “We have engaged with our regulators throughout this process,” said Tom Kelly, a bank spokesperson. “We continue to meet the requirements of the consent order.” (Kelly said Chase also filed some credit card lawsuits in 2019.)
Kelly declined to say how many suits it has filed in its blitz of the past two years, but civil dockets from across the country give a hint of the scale — and its accelerating pace. Chase sued more than 800 credit card customers around Fort Lauderdale, Florida, last year after suing 70 in 2020 and none in 2019, according to a review of court records. In Westchester County, in New York’s suburbs, court records show that Chase has sued more than 400 customers over credit card debt since 2020; a year earlier, the equivalent figure was one.
A similar surge is occurring in Texas, according to January Advisors, a data-science firm. Chase filed more than 1,000 consumer debt lawsuits around Houston last year after filing only seven in 2020, the analytics firm’s review of court records in Harris County shows. Chase instigated 141 consumer debt cases in Austin last year after filing only one such case in 2020, according to January Advisors, which is conducting research for a nationwide study ofdebt collection cases.
Today, just as it did before running afoul of the CFPB, Chase is mass-producing affidavits from the same San Antonio office where low-level employees generated hundreds of thousands of affidavits in the past, according to defense attorneys and court documents. Those affidavits are often the main piece of evidence that Chase uses to win its case while detailed customer records — and any errors they may contain — remain out of sight.
“Our clients deserve to see everything that Chase has in its files,” Dorsen said. “Instead, Chase gives us these affidavits and says: ‘You can trust us about the rest.’”
Before the robo-signing scandal a decade ago, Chase recovered about a billion dollars a year with its credit card collections business, according to the CFPB. Why would Chase stop suing customers for years, forgoing billions of dollars, only to ramp up its suits once key provisions of the CFPB settlement had expired?
Craig Cowie thinks he has an answer. “Chase did not think it could make money if it had to sue customers and abide by the CFPB settlement,” said Cowie, who worked as an enforcement attorney at the CFPB during the Obama administration and now teaches at the University of Montana Law School. “That’s the only explanation that makes sense for why the bank would have held back.”
Cowie, who did not work on the CFPB’s case against Chase, said he doesn’t know why the agency agreed to a time limit on some settlement provisions. He pointed out that such agreements are negotiated and the CFPB cannot just dictate the terms. The agency may have felt it had to let some provisions of the settlement expire to get Chase to agree to the deal, Cowie said.
The CFPB declined to comment.
For its part, Chase said it waited years to restart its lawsuits because it took that long to get the system working right. “We rebuilt the litigation program slowly and methodically to make sure we had the right controls in place,” said its spokesperson, Kelly.
At the time, the CFPB had found numerous flaws in Chase’s suits. The agency concluded that Chase used “unfair” legal tactics when it promised that its credit card account information was reliable and mistake-free. It wasn’t simply a matter of errors in calculating how much was owed; in some cases the company even got the customer’s name wrong. Chase would sometimes pass accounts with errors — including instances where customers had been victims of credit card fraud, others who had tried to settle their debts and even some who had died — on to outside debt collectors, who might then take action based on that information.
Once Chase won a victory in court, the bank could seek to garnish a customer’s wages or raid their bank accounts, and those customers would pay a further price: a stain on their credit report that could make it harder to “obtain credit, employment, housing, and insurance,” the CFPB wrote.
Those sued by Chase, then and now, might spot errors if the company provided full records in its court filings, consumer advocates say. Instead, Chase typically submits copies of a few credit card statements along with a two-page affidavit attesting that the bank’s records were accurate and complete.
Consumer advocates say they do not expect that the majority of Chase’s credit card records are tainted with errors. But if today’s error rate is the same 10% that the CFPB estimated in the past and the Chase lawsuit push continues, thousands of customers may be sued for money they don’t owe. And there is no easy way to check when Chase keeps so many of its records out of sight.
Chase said that its current system for processing credit card lawsuits is sound and reliable. “We quality-check 100% of our affidavits today,” the company said in a statement.
Credit card customers do not respond to collections lawsuits in roughly 70% of cases, according to research from The Pew Charitable Trusts. In those instances, the customer typically loses by default.
In the small percentage of cases where a customer gets a lawyer or otherwise fights back, Chase still has the advantage because it can access all of the customer’s account records easily, according to consumer lawyers. (The bank typically closes accounts of customers who have failed to pay their debts, leaving them unable to access their records online.) Chase usually shares the complete credit card account file only after a legal fight, according to attorneys and pleadings from across the country. “Chase has all the evidence and we have to beg to get it,” said Jerry Jarzombek, a consumer-rights attorney in Fort Worth, Texas, who is defending several Chase customers.
The result leaves many defendants in a bind: They don’t have enough information to know whether they should dispute the company’s claims. “Chase wants us to believe its records are reliable so we don’t need to see them,” Jarzombek said. “Well, I’m sorry. I’ve dealt with Chase for decades. I’d prefer to see what evidence they’ve actually got.”
The robo-signing scandal exposed Chase’s affidavit-signing assembly line. Before the settlement, Chase had about a half-dozen employees churning through affidavits stacked a foot high or taller, according to the former Chase executive who brought the practices to light at the time. Kamala Harris, who was then California’s attorney general and is now vice president, likened the process to anaffidavit mill.
The current operation involves roughly a dozen “signing officers” working from the same San Antonio offices as before and performing many of the same tasks, according to Chase employees and outside lawyers who have represented the company.
Chase used to prepare affidavits “in bulk using stock templates,” according to the 2015 CFPB findings. That is again happening today, according to two of Chase’s outside lawyers who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the process.
The lawyers said they typically send their affidavit requests in batches. The requests already contain the basic details of the customer’s account when they arrive in Chase’s San Antonio office, they said. An affidavit request that is sent one day can typically be processed and returned the next business day, the lawyers said.
Chase affidavits contain stock language that the “signing officer” has “personal knowledge of and access to [Chase’s] books and records.” That “personal knowledge” is limited, said one signing officer who declined to be named. Chase does not expect signing officers to perform a forensic review of an account but rather to follow computer prompts to complete the affidavit, said the employee. “We just work with what’s on the screen.”
Chase declined to discuss its process for creating affidavits, but the bank said it satisfies the rules set by courts in the places where it operates. “Judges, clerks and other judiciary staff are well versed in the court rules and laws in their jurisdictions,” said the statement by the bank’s spokesperson, Kelly. “Through our counsel, we provide the information those parties require in matters before them.”
Courts around the country have grown too accepting of what big banks and debt collectors say, according to consumer advocates. And the justice they dispense can feel as cursory and hurried as the suits that Chase files.
In Texas a decade ago, lawmakers pushed most credit card cases into the state’s version of small claims courts, known as justice courts. The rules of evidence are more lax there and the judge might not even be a lawyer. A retired basketball player presides over one suchcourtroom in Houston. “One of these judges said to me: ‘What’s the point of seeing a bunch of evidence? We already know these people borrowed the money,’” said Jarzombek, the Fort Worth attorney. “I said: ‘Why even have a trial, then? Let the banks take whatever they want.’”
In Houston, where Chase has more than 1,000 consumer credit suits on the docket, only one defendant in those cases has fought to a trial on her own, according to court records.
That person’s experience is instructive. Like many, Melissa Razo struggled financially during the early pandemic. A former restaurant manager, the 42-year-old Razo had gone back to school, the University of Houston, to study psychology, and she supported herself by doing typing for an online transcription service. That work suddenly dried up when the pandemic hit, and Razo began missing credit card payments. Her debt escalated. Chase sued her in January 2021, claiming she owed a total of about $8,500 on two credit cards.
Razo had a previous court experience stemming from an acrimonious divorce, where she had learned that a plaintiff needs facts and evidence to win. “Nothing I presented was good enough,” she recalled of the divorce case.
Using what she’d learned, Razo prepared for her day in court against Chase. She could not access her account anymore, she said, because the bank had shut it down. So in late June, as her hearing date approached, Razo pulled together as many of her credit card statements as she could find. They told a story of grocery runs and shopping at Target and Goodwill, along with missed payments and penalties.
Razo presumed Chase would have to back up its claims just as she had been expected to do in divorce court. She expected the company’s lawyers would have five years of statements and documents to show that she owed exactly what they said she owed. This was a trial, after all.
The trial lasted perhaps a minute, according to Razo. It boiled down to two questions. Was Razo present? the judge asked over Zoom. When she announced herself, the judge asked if she had a Chase credit card. Yes, Razo said, that was true. Then, she said, the judge ruled in favor of Chase.
Chase declined to comment on the case. The judge was not authorized to speak about the matter, according to a court clerk. And the justice courts do not transcribe their hearings, so ProPublica could not verify what was said. (The court’s docket did confirm that a judgment was entered in Chase’s favor after a judge trial.)
Razo’s courtroom experience, though, sounds typical, according to Rich Tomlinson, a lawyer with Lone Star Legal Aid. “I can’t recall ever seeing a live witness in a debt case,” said Tomlinson, who has represented hundreds of debtors in his career. “These trials are not like Perry Mason. They’re not even Judge Judy.”
ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.
As a member of Congress, Jared Polis was one of the loudest Democrats demanding President Donald Trump release his tax returns.
At a rally in Denver in 2017, he warned the crowd that Trump “might have something to hide.” That same year, on the floor of the House, he introduced a resolution to force the president to release the records, calling them an “important baseline disclosure.”
But during Polis’ successful run for governor of Colorado in 2018, his calls for transparency faded. The dot-com tycoon turned investor broke with recent precedent and refused to disclose his returns, blaming his Republican opponent, who wasn’t disclosing his.
Polis may have had other reasons for denying requests to release the records.
Despite a net worth estimated to be in the hundreds of millions, Polis paid nothing in federal income taxes in 2013, 2014 and 2015. From 2010 to 2018, his overall rate was just 8.2% — less than half of the 19% paid by a worker making $45,000 in 2018.
The revelations about Polis are contained in a trove of tax information obtained by ProPublica covering thousands of the nation’s wealthiest people. The Colorado governor is one of several ultrarich politicians who, the data shows, have paid little or no federal income taxes in multiple years, exploited loopholes to dodge estate taxes or used their public offices to fight reforms that would increase their tax bills.
The records show that rich Democrats and Republicans alike have slashed their taxes using strategies unavailable to most of their constituents. Among them are governors, members of Congress and a cabinet secretary.
Richard Painter, the chief White House ethics lawyer during the George W. Bush administration, said the tax avoidance of these top politicians is “very, very worrisome” since both parties “spend like crazy” and depend on taxes to fund their priorities, from the military to Medicare to Social Security.
“They have the power to decide how much the rest of us pay and the power to spend the money, and then they’re not paying their fair share?” Painter said. “That should be troubling to voters, both conservative and liberal. It should be troubling for everyone.”
West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice, for example, is a Republican coal magnate who has made the Forbes list of wealthiest Americans. Yet he’s paid very little or no federal income taxes for almost every year since 2000.
California Rep. Darrell Issa, one of the richest people in Congress, was one of the few Republicans to break with his party during the 2017 tax overhaul to fight for a deduction that — unbeknownst to the public — helped him avoid millions in taxes.
And the tax records of Republican Sen. Rick Scott of Florida and Trump’s education secretary, Betsy DeVos, showed that both employed a loophole, which was accidentally created by Congress, to escape estate and gift taxes.
As ProPublica has revealed in a series of articles this year, these tactics, if sometimes aggressive, are completely legal. And they’re not universal among wealthy politicians. ProPublica reviewed tax data for a couple dozen wealthy current and former government officials. Their data shows that many of them paid relatively high tax rates while employing more modest use of the fairly standard deductions of the rich.
The politicians who paid little or exploited loopholes either defended their practices as completely proper or declined to comment.
“The Governor has paid every cent of taxes he owes, he has championed tax reform and tax fairness to fix this broken system for everybody, to report otherwise would be inaccurate,” Polis’ spokesperson wrote in an email.
During the late 1990s dot-com era, Polis earned a reputation as a boy wonder. He turned his parents’ small greeting card company into a website, bluemountain.com, which was among the first to enable users to send free virtual cards. He and his family sold the site in 1999 for $780 million.
With the windfall from the sale, Polis continued to start new ventures and invest, but he also began laying the groundwork for a career in politics. He landed in the governor’s office in 2019 when he was just 43.
One of his tools for raising his profile was philanthropy. His generous donations to charity became a theme of both his 2008 run for Congress and his 2018 run for Colorado’s highest office.
Philanthropy also helped keep his tax rate enviably low. In many years, the deductions he claimed for his charitable giving were large enough to wipe out half the income he would have owed taxes on. His giving allowed him, in essence, to take some of the money he would have paid into the public coffers and donate it instead to causes of his choosing.
But an examination of Polis’ philanthropy shows that while he has given to a wide variety of causes, some of his donations served to promote him, blurring the lines between charity and campaigning.
According to the tax filings of his charity, the Jared Polis Foundation, the organization spent more than $2 million from 2001 to 2008 on a semiannual mailer sent to “hundreds of thousands of households throughout Colorado” that was intended to build “on a foundation of familiarity with Jared Polis’ name and his support of public education.” It was one of the charity’s largest expenditures.
A 2005 edition of the mailer reviewed by ProPublica had the feel of a campaign ad. It was emblazoned with the title “Jared Polis Education Report,” included his name six times on the cover and featured photos of Polis, a former state board of education member, surrounded by smiling school children.
The newsletters were discontinued just as he was elected. Because the mailers did not explicitly advocate for his election, they would have been legally allowed as a charitable expenditure.
A decade later, when he ran for governor in a race that he personally poured more than $20 million into, Polis featured his philanthropy in his campaign. In one ad, he used testimonials from an employee and a graduate of a business training charity he founded for military veterans.
Polis’ spokesperson, Victoria Graham, defended the mailers, saying they were intended “to promote innovations and successful models in public education and to raise awareness for the challenges facing public education.” She also pointed to a range of other philanthropy Polis was involved in, from founding charter schools, which she noted were not named after him, to distributing computers to organizations in need.
“His philanthropy is not and has never been motivated by receiving a tax write-off, and to state otherwise is not only inaccurate but fabricating motives and intent and cynical in its view of charity,” Graham said.
While Polis’ charitable giving has helped keep the percentage of his income he pays in taxes low, he has also been able to keep his total taxable income relatively small by using another strategy common among the wealthy: investing in businesses that grow in value but produce minimal income.
It sounds counterintuitive, but it’s a basic principle of the U.S. tax system — one that typically benefits wealthy people who can afford not to take income. Investments only trigger income taxes when they produce “realized” gains, such as dividends from a stock holding, the sale of an asset or profits from a company. But an investment’s growth in value, while it makes its owner richer, is not taxable.
Polis acknowledged his use of the strategy in 2008 after he released tax information during his first run for Congress and faced criticism for paying so little in taxes. “I founded several high-growth companies, and we would manage those for growth rather than for profit,” he said. “When I make money, I pay taxes. When I don’t make money, I don’t.”
In one of the recent years Polis paid no income taxes, his losses were larger than his income. In two of the years, it was about a million dollars. From 2010 to 2018, when he paid an overall rate of just 8.2%, including payroll taxes, his income averaged $1.5 million.
During that period of low taxes and relatively low income, Polis’ estimated net worth rose sharply. Members of Congress only have to report the value of each of their assets in ranges, so assigning a precise number is impossible. But the nonprofit data site OpenSecrets, which makes estimates by taking the midpoint of the ranges, shows Polis’ wealth growing from $143 million in 2010 to $306 million in 2017, making him the third richest-member of the House at the time. (Graham said congressional disclosure forms are confusingly formatted, potentially causing certain assets to be counted more than once, “so these numbers are likely wildly off.” She did not provide alternative net worth figures.)
One of Polis’ primary vehicles for building his fortune, while avoiding taxable income, appears to have been a family office, Jovian Holdings. The board of directors included his father, sister and a rather surprising outsider: Arthur Laffer. The famed conservative economist’s Laffer Curve provided the Reagan administration with the intellectual basis for arguing that cutting taxes would increase tax revenue. (Polis’ sister is a ProPublica donor.)
The term family office has a mom-and-pop feel, but it is actually part of the infrastructure of protecting the fortunes of the ultrawealthy, from crafting investment and tax strategy to succession and estate planning to concierge services. Depending on how they’re organized, for instance as a business, their costs — the salaries of the staff, rent — can be deductible.
One of the executives at Polis’ family office, according to her LinkedIn profile, is a seasoned tax expert who specializes in “maximizing cost savings both operationally and with all taxing authorities.” She removed that detail around the time ProPublica approached Polis about his taxes.
Unlike ordinary investors, Polis was able to claim millions in deductions for some of the costs of his money management, specifically his family office, which contributed to lowering his tax burden. Ironically, the investment apparatus that helped Polis avoid taxable income became a tax break.
ProPublica discussed the scenario, without naming Polis, with Bob Lord, tax counsel for the advocacy group Americans for Tax Fairness. He said the public appears to be essentially subsidizing Polis’ investing while getting little in return. With a typical business, he said, you get the tax break but also relatively quickly make taxable income.
The costs of a family office are “being taken even though the income may be way out in the future. It’s just a giveaway,” Lord said. “What is the public getting from it? This really, really rich politician gets to shelter his income while his investments grow and doesn’t pay tax on it until he sells.”
Deferring paying taxes is a valuable perk. But the strategy, Lord said, may allow Polis an even more lucrative outcome. Now that Polis has made his fortune, he may be able to largely dodge the tax system forever. Should he die before selling his investments, his heirs would never owe income taxes on the growth.
Graham acknowledged that the tax system unfairly benefits the wealthy but said Polis is not purposely avoiding income that would result in taxes.
“The Governor has long championed tax reforms precisely because the income tax is inadequate and a mismatched way to tax most wealthy people who do not have a regular income but who make money in other ways and should be taxed,” she said. “Since 2006, Governor Polis has paid over $20 million in taxes on the money he earned on his gains and he has championed tax reforms that would lower the tax burden on middle-income earners and eliminate loopholes to ensure higher earners pay their share.”
ProPublica’s data shows that at least two federal officials have already taken steps to preserve their family fortunes for their heirs, exploiting loopholes that divert revenue from the federal government.
Scott, the Florida senator who ran one of the world’s largest health care companies, and DeVos, Trump’s education secretary and believed to be the richest member of his cabinet, have both stored assets in grantor retained annuity trusts — a form of trust used to avoid gift and estate taxes.
GRATs, as they’re commonly known, were accidentally created by Congress in 1990. Lawmakers were trying to close another estate tax loophole and in doing so unintentionally paved the way for another one. The lawyer who pioneered the trusts estimated in 2013 that they had cost the federal government about $100 billion over the prior 13 years.
To use this tax-avoidance technique, you put an asset, like stocks or real estate, into a trust assigned to your heirs. The trust pays you back the starting value of the asset (plus some interest). If the original asset rises in value, the gains can go to your heirs tax-free.
GRATs have become widely used among the superrich. A ProPublica investigation found that more than half of the nation’s richest individuals have employed them and other trusts to avoid estate taxes.
It’s unclear from ProPublica’s data how much DeVos, 63, and Scott, 68, were able to transfer tax-free.
DeVos and her husband employed a GRAT from at least 2000 to 2003. DeVos’ father was a wealthy industrialist. Her husband was the president of Amway, a multilevel marketing company that focuses on health, beauty and home products. Her family is believed to be worth billions.
Her causes both before and during her time in government depended on tax dollars. As a donor and fundraiser for Republican causes, she pushed for charter schools and government subsidies to allow parents to send their kids to private schools. As education secretary, she pushed to send millions of federal dollars intended for public schools to private and religious schools instead.
Scott, one of the wealthiest senators, with a net worth likely in the hundreds of millions, used a GRAT for much longer, from at least 2001 through 2009. His tax data shows the assets in the trust — stakes of a private investment fund and family partnership he and his wife created — receiving millions in income.
When he was in the private sector, Scott benefited from federal programs like Medicare, which are funded by taxes. He built and ran Columbia/HCA, a massive chain of for-profit hospitals. After a fraud investigation became public, he resigned and the company paid $1.7 billion to settle allegations it overbilled government health programs. Scott has previously emphasized that he was never charged, though he acknowledged the company made mistakes.
Scott declined to comment. Nick Wasmiller, a spokesman for DeVos, said she “pays her taxes in full as required by law. Your ‘reporting’ is not only factually wrong but also doubles-down on the criminal actions that underpin ProPublica’s political campaign to prop up the Biden Administration’s failing agenda.”
California Congressman Darrell Issa was one of a handful of Republicans who bucked his party in 2017 and voted against Trump’s tax overhaul.
Issa said he opposed the legislation because it all but eliminated the deduction taxpayers could take on their federal returns for state and local taxes. That provision was particularly contentious in high tax blue states like California, but most Republicans from his state still fell in line. The other GOP congressman in the San Diego area, for example, voted yes.
Limiting the write-off, known as the SALT deduction, was one of the few progressive changes in the Trump tax law. The deduction had long disproportionately benefited the wealthiest because they pay the most in state and local taxes. According to one projection, if the cap were removed from the deduction, households with income in the top 1% would reap the most benefit, paying $31,000 less a year on average — amounting to more than half of the total taxes avoided through the write-off. The top 25% of households would average less than $3,000 in savings a year, and the savings drop precipitously from there, with most households deriving no benefit.
In interviews and public statements, Issa said in fighting to preserve the deduction, he was defending the interests of middle-class taxpayers. “I didn’t come to Washington to raise taxes on my constituents,” he said at the time, “and I do not plan to start today.”
It’s true that more than 40% of taxpayers in Issa’s former district, a relatively affluent swath of Southern California, were able to make at least some use of the deduction.
But the 68-year-old congressman, who made a fortune in the car alarm business, was in the top echelon of its beneficiaries. Between 2003 and 2017, his tax data shows, Issa generally paid a relatively high tax rate but was able to claim more than $51 million in write-offs thanks to the SALT deduction, an average of more than $3 million a year.
By contrast, households in his district that made between $100,000 and $200,000 and took the SALT deduction claimed an average of $14,843 in 2017.
Issa’s spokesman, Jonathan Wilcox, declined to say if the SALT deduction’s impact on the congressman’s taxes factored into his decision to advocate for it.
“So much stupid,” Wilcox said. “Be sure to write back if you ever do better than trolling for garbage.”
Gov. Jim Justice is believed to be the richest person in West Virginia, controlling vast reserves of valuable steelmaking coal and owning The Greenbrier luxury resort. He made an appearance in 2014 on the Forbes list of 400 wealthiest Americans. Estimates of his net worth have ranged from the hundreds of millions to well over a billion.
Nonetheless, he’s paid little or no federal income taxes for almost every year between 2000 and 2018, ProPublica’s trove of tax records shows. In 12 of those years he paid nothing, and in all but two of those years, his rate didn’t exceed 4%.
His largest tax payment came in 2009, when his family sold off much of its mining holdings to a Russian company for more than half a billion dollars. That year, after deductions, his tax rate rose to a modest 13.4%.
In more recent years, Justice, 70, has reported tens of millions in losses each year. That not only helped him to minimize his federal income taxes, it also allowed him to apply those losses to his profits from previous years — and get refunds for the taxes he initially paid in those years.
Justice’s income was low enough in 2018 for his family to qualify for and receive a $2,400 coronavirus stimulus check, aid meant for low- and middle-income Americans.
The recent years of large losses reported on Justice’s tax returns have coincided with real signs of financial problems. The coal industry’s fortunes have rapidly declined. He’s been hounded for unpaid bills and loans. The Russian company that bought much of his coal empire sued him and got him to buy back the assets — at a much discounted price but attached to significant debt. Forbes knocked him off its wealth ranking, citing escalating battles with two major lenders over unpaid debt. Justice’s representatives have said he pays what he owes, and his business empire is in good shape.
But even before his empire began showing significant cracks, Justice was reporting losses or little income for a man so wealthy. From 1996 to 2008, Justice, who received a coal and farming fortune from his father, who died in 1993, either reported losses to the IRS or just a few hundred thousand dollars in income.
The disconnect could be explained by the generous deductions afforded to coal business owners.
For example, owners are allowed a depletion deduction, which allows them to take 10% of the revenue from coal they extract and write it off against their profit. This spin on depreciation can have outsized benefits because unlike normal depreciation — in which the write-offs are based on how much you paid for an asset — the write-off amount here faces no such limit, and can therefore exceed the initial investment. The deduction has been criticized by environmentalists and congressional Democrats as an overly generous giveaway.
Another benefit coal owners get is the ability to immediately expense much of their mine development costs on their taxes instead of being forced to stretch such deductions over a longer period of time. Justice has said that in the 15 years after his father’s death, he oversaw “a massive expansion of multiple businesses which included significant coal reserve expansion” — development that could have provided him with a significant stockpile of such write-offs. (ProPublica has previously reported on other generous write-offs. Sports team owners, for example, are allowed to deduct the value of their intangible assets — such as media deals and franchise rights — as wasting assets, even as they rise in value.)
Experts said this could explain how Justice could have reported negative income of $15 million in 2008, a year in which Mechel, the Russian company that subsequently bought much of his family’s coal empire, said that business alone produced about $94 million in EBITDA — a common measure of a business’ profitability before taxes and some other expenses.
Justice declined to answer a list of specific questions about his taxes. In a statement, his lawyer, Steve Ruby, said Justice “has paid millions upon millions of dollars in state and federal income taxes and has always followed the law. In many years, his businesses have suffered losses as the result of weak coal prices combined with substantial outlays to save jobs at local businesses that other companies were abandoning.
“When many other coal producers were filing for bankruptcy, the Justice companies persevered and refused to take the easy way out through a bankruptcy proceeding, a decision that contributed to those losses. Like any other taxpayer, Gov. Justice does not owe income taxes in years in which his income is negative,” the statement read.
Ruby confirmed that Justice received coronavirus stimulus checks but said he did not cash them.
Like Scott and DeVos, Justice has used GRATs to sidestep estate and gift taxes, his returns and court records suggest.
In 2008, the year before he sold much of his coal empire to the Russian company, two GRATs appeared on his returns for the first time. And when the Russian company sued Justice, it also sued him in his capacity as the trustee for those GRATs. Justice had placed at least some of the coal assets into the trusts before the sale, according to the lawsuit.
Ruby’s statement did not address Justice’s use of GRATs.
Ask almost any billionaire how they got so obscenely rich and , invariably, you will get the response: “I just did what the law allows” or some convoluted version of that idea. Tax laws, property and financial regulations and structures, corporate stock options, Roth IRA tricks, all the tried and true methods outlined in a slate of recent articles from ProPublica and others are rightfully given credit for the insanely massive windfalls.
Not that these arrogant, self-centered sociopaths don’t jump at the chance to take credit for their “miraculous” good fortune, or even write books and “let” others write books about all the “genius” ideas and methods they used to conquer the universe.
Jeff Bezos is the most ridiculous example of this, literally dozens of books exist only to extol the virtues and genius of this a-hole that basically used one simple trick: selling dollar bills for .75 cents and using the stock market to “monetize” a trillion in intentional losses and turn them into “wealth”, to amass his absurd mountain of “worth”, yet if you read these books the central concept of his fraud doesn’t even get a mention.
Of course, 25 years later, the FTC and Lina Khan are finally beginning to wake up to the simple fact that, not only is the entire scam something that “ought-a-be-illegal”, but literally is illegal and always was, yet this comes across, so far, as a somewhat pathetic attempt to put a band-aid on the world after a nuclear holocaust has already devastated the planet.
When we say “tax the rich,” we mean nesting-doll yacht rich. For-profit prison rich. Betsy DeVos, student-loan-shark rich.
AOC used her beauty and a cheeky dress to highlight the issue of income inequality
Above: Photo / Wikipedia
AOC at the Met Gala styled herself in a “Tax the Rich” gown. The look on her was beautiful. The subject matter being broached couldn’t be uglier. Tax the rich a not a bad idea, but the system is so screwed up, and so far from any semblance of “fair”, that a few little pin pricks on trillions in undeserved holdings is basically meaningless.
How can it be said that the system is that far gone? It’s in the numbers and the proportions of “wealth”. The extremes of unequal wealth distribution have risen to levels so incredible, that it’s as if they are turning into an economic ouroboros dragon that will expand and swallow itself until it has devoured all life.
The increases, during the pandemic, for example, in the “net-worth” (which is in itself an obscene concept for measuring humans) of the worlds richest animals was like the replication of the virus the rest of us were fighting to avoid, most with too few resources to have any hope of being rescued by medical intervention, if we got infected.
This idea and proof of a system vastly out of balance can be seen everywhere you look…
In a recent, excellent, NYT article on Afghanistan multiple examples were cited illustrating who really “won” that endless war, and points out that it wasn’t the just Taliban. It was locals entrepreneurs and politicians who, early on, saw the opportunity for what it really was, a way to build personal fortunes supplying the US military with support and comfort during the endless, directionless morass.
Several examples were of people who began the war as local american sympathizers and ended up with fortunes hundreds of millions of USD and more, virtually none of which trickled into the local populations which, ostensibly, the war was meant to give a chance for “democratic freedom”. And capitalism.
Here’s a couple of paragraphs from the NYT article in full :
”Consider the case of Hikmatullah Shadman, who was just a teenager when American Special Forces rolled into Kandahar on the heels of Sept. 11. They hired him as an interpreter, paying him up to $1,500 a month — 20 times the salary of a local police officer, according to a profile of him in The New Yorker. By his late 20s, he owned a trucking company that supplied U.S. military bases, earning him more than $160 million.”
“If a small fry like Shadman could get so rich off the war on terror, imagine how much Gul Agha Sherzai, a big-time warlord-turned-governor, has raked in since he helped the C.I.A. run the Taliban out of town. His large extended family supplied everything from gravel to furniture to the military base in Kandahar. His brother controlled the airport. Nobody knows how much he is worth, but it is clearly hundreds of millions — enough for him to talk about a $40,000 shopping spree in Germany as if he were spending pocket change”
New York Times
Redistribution will likely only happen after the entire system collapses of its own stupidity
Hubris and pride before the fall is the reason that, when you read this, you’ll think perhaps this writer has lost his marbles. But the system is unsustainable in its current unequal, and increasingly unjust, form.
Sources: March 18, 2020 data: Forbes, “Forbes Publishes 34th Annual List Of Global Billionaires,” accessed March 18, 2020. August 17, 2021 data: Forbes, “The World’s Real-Time Billionaires, Today’s Winners and Losers,” accessed August 17, 2021.
Just one more ballooning of the one tenth of one percent and the system will be so out of balance, that only a total and complete realignment of reality will allow any kind of improvement in the distribution of resources.
In fact, the opposite outcome is far more likely, where to increase in the imbalance will continue ‘till there are no options, but for the current system to be drowned in its own orgy of self-congratulations.
The solutions that are out there, many even championed ironically and paradoxically by the very billionaires that sit on top of this mountain of inequality, could work. But a “penny tax” or some kind of gratuitous show of “generosity” by those that have wealth that, if the system were designed with any form of equal distribution, they would not, and could not, have, is less than nothing.
Similar to the climate conundrum, things will have to get worse, it appears, to engage and enrage people, and wake enough people up, to set a fire under enough people, to build to a tipping point toward real change. Fortunately, if you accept that inverted and convoluted logic, that day is very near.
In November 2017, with the administration of President Donald Trump rushing to get a massive tax overhaul through Congress, Sen. Ron Johnson stunned his colleagues by announcing he would vote “no.”
Making the rounds on cable TV, the Wisconsin Republican became the first GOP senator to declare his opposition, spooking Senate leaders who were pushing to quickly pass the tax bill with their thin majority. “If they can pass it without me, let them,” Johnson declared.
Johnson’s demand was simple: In exchange for his vote, the bill must sweeten the tax break for a class of companies that are known as pass-throughs, since profits pass through to their owners. Johnson praised such companies as “engines of innovation.” Behind the scenes, the senator pressed top Treasury Department officials on the issue, emails and the officials’ calendars show.
Within two weeks, Johnson’s ultimatum produced results. Trump personally called the senator to beg for his support, and the bill’s authors fattened the tax cut for these businesses. Johnson flipped to a “yes” and claimed credit for the change. The bill passed.
The Trump administration championed the pass-through provision as tax relief for “small businesses.”
Confidential tax records, however, reveal that Johnson’s last-minute maneuver benefited two families more than almost any others in the country — both worth billions and both among the senator’s biggest donors.
Dick and Liz Uihlein of packaging giant Uline, along with roofing magnate Diane Hendricks, together had contributed around $20 million to groups backing Johnson’s 2016 reelection campaign.
The expanded tax break Johnson muscled through netted them $215 million in deductions in 2018 alone, drastically reducing the income they owed taxes on. At that rate, the cut could deliver more than half a billion in tax savings for Hendricks and the Uihleins over its eight-year life.
But the tax break did more than just give a lucrative, and legal, perk to Johnson’s donors. In the first year after Trump signed the legislation, just 82 ultrawealthy households collectively walked away with more than $1 billion in total savings, an analysis of confidential tax records shows. Republican and Democratic tycoons alike saw their tax bills chopped by tens of millions, among them: media magnate and former Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg; the Bechtel family, owners of the engineering firm that bears their name; and the heirs of the late Houston pipeline billionaire Dan Duncan.
Usually the scale of the riches doled out by opaque tax legislation — and the beneficiaries — remain shielded from the public. But ProPublica has obtained a trove of IRS records covering thousands of the wealthiest Americans. The records have enabled reporters this year to explore the diverse menu of options the tax code affords the ultrawealthy to avoid paying taxes.
The drafting of the Trump law offers a unique opportunity to examine how the billionaire class is able to shape the code to its advantage, building in new ways to sidestep taxes.
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was the biggest rewrite of the code in decades and arguably the most consequential legislative achievement of the one-term president. Crafted largely in secret by a handful of Trump administration officials and members of Congress, the bill was rushed through the legislative process.
As draft language of the bill made its way through Congress, lawmakers friendly to billionaires and their lobbyists were able to nip and tuck and stretch the bill to accommodate a variety of special groups. The flurry of midnight deals and last-minute insertions of language resulted in a vast redistribution of wealth into the pockets of a select set of families, siphoning away billions in tax revenue from the nation’s coffers. This story is based on lobbying and campaign finance disclosures, Treasury Department emails and calendars obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, and confidential tax records.
For those who benefited from the bill’s modifications, the collective millions spent on campaign donations and lobbying were minuscule compared with locking in years of enormous tax savings.
A spokesperson for the Uihleins declined to comment. Representatives for Hendricks didn’t respond to questions. In response to emailed questions, Johnson did not address whether he had discussed the expanded tax break with Hendricks or the Uihleins. Instead, he wrote in a statement that his advocacy was driven by his belief that the tax code “needs to be simplified and rationalized.”
“My support for ‘pass-through’ entities — that represent over 90% of all businesses — was guided by the necessity to keep them competitive with C-corporations and had nothing to do with any donor or discussions with them,” he wrote.
By the summer of 2017, it was clear that Trump’s first major legislative initiative, to “repeal and replace” Obamacare, had gone up in flames, taking a marquee campaign promise with it. Looking for a win, the administration turned to tax reform.
“Getting closer and closer on the Tax Cut Bill. Shaping up even better than projected,” Trump tweeted. “House and Senate working very hard and smart. End result will be not only important, but SPECIAL!”
At the top of the Republican wishlist was a deep tax cut for corporations. There was little doubt that such a cut would make it into the final legislation. But because of the complexity of the tax code, slashing the corporate tax rate doesn’t actually affect most U.S. businesses.
Corporate taxes are paid by what are known in tax lingo as C corporations, which include large publicly traded firms like AT&T or Coca-Cola. Most businesses in the United States aren’t C corporations, they’re pass-throughs. The name comes from the fact that when one of these businesses makes money, the profits are not subject to corporate taxes. Instead, they “pass through” directly to the owners, who pay taxes on the profits on their personal returns. Unlike major shareholders in companies like Amazon, who can avoid taking income by not selling their stock, owners of successful pass-throughs typically can’t avoid it.
Pass-throughs include the full gamut of American business, from small barbershops to law firms to, in the case of Uline, a packaging distributor with thousands of employees.
So alongside the corporate rate cut for the AT&Ts of the world, the Trump tax bill included a separate tax break for pass-through companies. For budgetary reasons, the tax break is not permanent, sunsetting after eight years.
Proponents touted it as boosting “small business” and “Main Street,” and it’s true that many small businesses got a modest tax break. But a recent study by Treasury economists found that the top 1% of Americans by income have reaped nearly 60% of the billions in tax savings created by the provision. And most of that amount went to the top 0.1%. That’s because even though there are many small pass-through businesses, most of the pass-through profits in the country flow to the wealthy owners of a limited group of large companies.
Tax records show that in 2018, Bloomberg, whom Forbes ranks as the 20th wealthiest person in the world, got the largest known deduction from the new provision, slashing his tax bill by nearly $68 million. (When he briefly ran for president in 2020, Bloomberg’s tax plan proposed ending the deduction, though his plan was generally friendlier to the wealthy than those of his rivals.) A spokesperson for Bloomberg declined to comment.
Johnson’s intervention in November 2017 was designed to boost the bill’s already generous tax break for pass-through companies. The bill had allowed for business owners to deduct up to 17.4% of their profits. Thanks to Johnson holding out, that figure was ultimately boosted to 20%.
That might seem like a small increase, but even a few extra percentage points can translate into tens of millions of dollars in extra deductions in one year alone for an ultrawealthy family.
The mechanics are complicated but, for the rich, it generally means that a business owner gets to keep an extra 7 cents on every dollar of profit. To understand the windfall, take the case of the Uihlein family.
Dick, the great-grandson of a beer magnate, and his wife, Liz, own and operate packaging giant Uline. The logo of the Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin, firm is stamped on the bottom of countless paper bags. Uline produced nearly $1 billion in profits in 2018, according to ProPublica’s analysis of tax records. Dick and Liz Uihlein, who own a majority of the company, reported more than $700 million in income that year. But they were able to slash what they owed the IRS with a $118 million deduction generated by the new tax break.
Liz Uihlein, who serves as president of Uline, has criticized high taxes in her company newsletter. The year before the tax overhaul, the couple gave generously to support Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. That same year, when Johnson faced long odds in his reelection bid against former Sen. Russ Feingold, the Uihleins gave more than $8 million to a series of political committees that blanketed the state with pro-Johnson and anti-Feingold ads. That blitz led the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel to dub the Uihleins “the Koch brothers of Wisconsin politics.”
Johnson’s campaign also got a boost from Hendricks, Wisconsin’s richest woman and owner of roofing wholesaler ABC Supply Co. The Beloit-based billionaire has publicly pushed for tax breaks and said she wants to stop the U.S. from becoming “a socialistic ideological nation.”
Hendricks has said Johnson won her over after she grilled him at a brunch meeting six years earlier. She gave about $12 million to a pair of political committees, the Reform America Fund and the Freedom Partners Action Fund, that bought ads attacking Feingold.
In the first year of the pass-through tax break, Hendricks got a $97 million deduction on income of $502 million. By reducing the income she owed taxes on, that deduction saved her around $36 million.
Even after Johnson won the expansion of the pass-through break in late 2017, the final text of the tax overhaul wasn’t settled. A congressional conference committee had to iron out the differences between the Senate and House versions of the bill.
Sometime during this process, eight words that had been in neither the House nor the Senate bill were inserted: “applied without regard to the words ‘engineering, architecture.’”
With that wonky bit of legalese, Congress smiled on the Bechtel clan.
The Bechtels’ engineering and construction company is one of the largest and most politically connected private firms in the country. With surgical precision, the new language guaranteed the Bechtels a massive tax cut. In previous versions of the bill, construction would have been given a tax break, but engineering was one of the industries excluded from the pass-through deduction for reasons that remain murky.
When the bill, with its eight added words, took effect in 2018, three great-great-grandchildren of the company’s founder, CEO Brendan Bechtel and his siblings Darren and Katherine, together netted deductions of $111 million on $679 million in income, tax records show.
And that’s just one generation of Bechtels. The heirs’ father, Riley, also holds a piece of the firm, as does a group of nonfamily executives and board members. In all, Bechtel Corporation produced around $2.3 billion of profit in 2018 alone — the vast majority of which appears to be eligible for the 20% deduction.
Who wrote the phrase — and which lawmaker inserted it — has been a much-discussed mystery in the tax policy world. ProPublica found that a lobbyist who worked for both Bechtel and an industry trade group has claimed credit for the alteration.
In the months leading up to the bill’s passage in 2017, Bechtel had executed a full-court press in Washington, meeting with Trump administration officials and spending more than $1 million lobbying on tax issues.
Marc Gerson, of the Washington law firm Miller & Chevalier, was paid to lobby on the tax bill by both Bechtel and the American Council of Engineering Companies, of which Bechtel is a member. At a presentation for the trade group’s members a few weeks after Trump signed the bill into law, Gerson credited his efforts for the pass-through tax break, calling it a “major legislative victory for the engineering industry.” Gerson did not respond to a request for comment.
Bechtel’s push was part of a long history of lobbying for tax breaks by the company. Two decades ago, it even hired a former IRS commissioner as part of a successful bid to get “engineering and architectural services” included in one of President George W. Bush’s tax cuts.
The company’s lobbying on the Trump tax bill, and the tax break it received, highlight a paradox at the core of Bechtel: The family has for years showered money on anti-tax candidates even though, as The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer has written, Bechtel “owed almost its entire existence to government patronage.” Most famous for being one of the companies that built the Hoover Dam, in recent years it has bid on and won marquee federal projects. Among them: a healthy share of the billions spent by American taxpayers to rebuild Iraq after the war. The firm recently moved its longtime headquarters from San Francisco to Reston, Virginia, a hub for federal contractors just outside the Beltway.
A spokesperson for Bechtel Corporation didn’t respond to questions about the company’s lobbying. The spokesperson, as well as a representative of the family’s investment office, didn’t respond to requests to accept questions about the family’s tax records.
Brendan Bechtel has emerged this year as a vocal critic of President Joe Biden’s proposal to pay for new infrastructure with tax hikes.
“It’s unfair to ask business to shoulder or cover all the additional costs of this public infrastructure investment,” he said on a recent CNBC appearance.
As the landmark tax overhaul sped through the legislative process, other prosperous groups of business owners worried they would be left out. With the help of lobbyists, and sometimes after direct contact with lawmakers, they, too, were invited into what Trump dubbed his “big, beautiful tax cut.”
Among the biggest winners during the final push were real estate developers.
The Senate bill included a formula that restricted the size of the new deduction based on how much a pass-through business paid in wages. Congressional Republicans framed the provision as rewarding businesses that create jobs. In effect, it meant a highly profitable business with few employees — like a real estate developer — wouldn’t be able to benefit much from the break.
Developers weren’t happy. Several marshaled lobbyists and prodded friendly lawmakers to turn things around.
At least two of them turned to Johnson.
“Dear Ron,” Ted Kellner, a Wisconsin developer, and a colleague wrote in a letter to Johnson. “I’m concerned that the goal of a fair, efficient and growth oriented tax overhaul will not be achieved, especially for private real estate pass-through entities.”
Johnson forwarded the letter from Kellner, a political donor of his, to top Republicans in the House and Senate: “All, Yesterday, I received this letter from very smart and successful businessmen in Milwaukee,” adding that the legislation as it stood gave pass-throughs “widely disparate, grossly unfair” treatment.
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Texas, responded with a promise to do more: “Senator — I strongly agree we should continue to improve the pass-through provisions at every step. You are a great champion for this.” Congress is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act, but Treasury officials were copied on the email exchange. ProPublica obtained the exchange after suing the Treasury Department.
Kellner got his wish. In the final days of the legislative process, real estate investors were given a side door to access the full deduction. Language was added to the final legislation that allowed them to qualify if they had a large portfolio of buildings, even if they had small payrolls.
With that, some of the richest real estate developers in the country were welcomed into the fold.
The tax records obtained by ProPublica show that one of the top real estate industry winners was Donald Bren, sole owner of the Southern California-based Irvine Company and one of the wealthiest developers in the United States.
In 2018 alone, Bren personally enjoyed a deduction of $22 million because of the tax break. Bren’s representatives did not respond to emails and calls from ProPublica.
His company had hired Wes Coulam, a prominent Washington lobbyist with Ernst & Young, to advocate for its interests as the bill was being hammered out. Before Coulam became a lobbyist, he worked on Capitol Hill as a tax policy adviser for Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch.
Hatch, then the Republican chair of the Senate Finance Committee, publicly took credit for the final draft of the new deduction, amid questions about the real estate carveout. Hatch’s representatives did not respond to questions from ProPublica about how the carveout was added.
ProPublica’s records show that other big real estate winners include Adam Portnoy, head of commercial real estate giant the RMR Group, who got a $14 million deduction in 2018. Donald Sterling, the real estate developer and disgraced former owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, won an $11 million deduction. Representatives for Portnoy and Sterling did not respond to questions from ProPublica.
Another gift to the real estate industry in the bill was a tax deduction of up to 20% on dividends from real estate investment trusts, more commonly known as REITs. These companies are essentially bundles of various real estate assets, which investors can buy chunks of. REITs make money by collecting rent from tenants and interest from loans used to finance real estate deals.
The tax cut for these investment vehicles was pushed by both the Real Estate Roundtable, a trade group for the entire industry, and the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts. The latter, a trade group specifically for REITs, spent more than $5 million lobbying in Washington the year the tax bill was drafted, more than it had in any year in its history.
Steven Roth, the founder of Vornado Realty Trust, a prominent REIT, is a regular donor to both groups’ political committees.
Roth had close ties to the Trump administration, including advising on infrastructure and doing business with Jared Kushner’s family. He became one of the biggest winners from the REIT provision in the Trump tax law.
Roth earned more than $27 million in REIT dividends in the two years after the bill passed, potentially allowing him a tax deduction of about $5 million, tax records show. Roth did not respond to requests for comment, and his representatives did not accept questions from ProPublica on his behalf.
Another carveout benefited investors of publicly traded pipeline businesses. Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, added an amendment for them to the Senate version of the bill just before it was voted on.
Without his amendment, investors who made under a certain income would have received the deduction anyway, experts told ProPublica. But for higher-income investors, a slate of restrictions kicked in. In order to qualify, they would have needed the businesses they’re invested in to pay out significant wages, and these oil and gas businesses, like real estate developers, typically do not.
Cornyn’s amendment cleared the way.
The trade group for these companies and one of its top members, Enterprise Products Partners, a Houston-based natural gas and crude oil pipeline company, had both lobbied on the bill. Enterprise was founded by Dan Duncan, who died in 2010.
The Trump tax bill delivered a win to Duncan’s heirs. ProPublica’s data shows his four children, who own stakes in the company, together claimed more than $150 million in deductions in 2018 alone. The tax provision for “small businesses” had delivered a windfall to the family Forbes ranked as the 11th richest in the country.
In a statement, an Enterprise spokesperson wrote: “The Duncan family abides by all applicable tax laws and will not comment on individual tax returns, which are a private matter.” Cornyn’s office did not respond to questions about the senator’s amendment.
The tax break is due to expire after 2025, and a gulf has opened in Congress about the future of the provision.
In July, Senate Finance Chair Ron Wyden, D-Ore., proposed legislation that would end the tax cut early for the ultrawealthy. In fact, anyone making over $500,000 per year would no longer get the deduction. But it would be extended to the business owners below that threshold who are currently excluded because of their industry. The bill would “make the policy more fair and less complex for middle-class business owners, while also raising billions for priorities like child care, education, and health care,” Wyden said in a statement.
Meanwhile, dozens of trade groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, are pushing to make the pass-through tax cut permanent. This year, a bipartisan bill called the Main Street Tax Certainty Act was introduced in both houses of Congress to do just that.
One of the bill’s sponsors, Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, pitched the legislation this way: “I am committed to delivering critical relief for our nation’s small businesses and the communities they serve.”
Originally published on ProPublica by Justin Elliott and Robert Faturechi
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden said on Thursday he is revisiting proposed legislation that would crack down on the giant tax-free retirement accounts amassed by the ultrawealthy after a ProPublica story exposed that billionaires were shielding fortunes inside them.
“I feel very strongly that the IRA was designed to provide retirement security to working people and their families, and not be yet another tax dodge that allows mega millionaires and billionaires to avoid paying taxes,” Wyden said in an interview.
ProPublica reported Thursday that the Roth IRA, a retirement vehicle originally intended to spur middle-class savings, was being hijacked by the ultrawealthy and used to create giant onshore tax shelters. Tax records obtained by ProPublica revealed that Peter Thiel, a co-founder of PayPal and an investor in Facebook, had a Roth IRA worth $5 billion as of 2019. Under the rules for the accounts, if he waits till he turns 59 and a half, he can withdraw money from the account tax-free.
The story is part of ProPublica’s ongoing series on how the country’s richest citizens sidestep the nation’s income tax system. ProPublica has obtained a trove of IRS tax return data on thousands of the wealthiest people in the U.S., covering more than 15 years. The records have allowed ProPublica to begin, this month, an unprecedented exploration of the tax-avoidance strategies available to the ultrawealthy, allowing them to avoid taxes in ways most Americans can’t.
Wyden said ProPublica’s stories have shifted the debate about taxes at the grassroots level, underscoring a “double standard” that would have a nurse in Medford, Oregon, dutifully paying taxes “with every single paycheck” while the wealthiest Americans “just defer, defer, defer paying their taxes almost until perpetuity.”
Wyden said, “Now, the American people are with us on the proposition that everybody ought to pay their fair share, and in that sense, the debate about taxes has really changed a lot.”
The focus on recouping lost tax revenue comes at a critical time, Wyden and others say, as lawmakers look for ways to fund President Joe Biden’s infrastructure plan and other domestic spending.
Wyden had worried for years that Roth IRAs were being abused by the ultrawealthy. In 2016, he put forth a proposal that would have reined in the amount of money that could be stowed inside them.
“If I had my way back in 2016, my bill would have passed, there would have been a crackdown on these massive Roth IRA accounts built on assets from sweetheart deals,” Wyden said.
The proposal was known as the Retirement Improvements and Savings Enhancements Act. It would have required owners of Roth accounts worth more than $5 million to take out money over time, capping the accounts’ growth. It also would have slammed shut a back door that allowed the wealthy to move fortunes into Roths from less favorable retirement accounts. This maneuver, known as a conversion, allows a taxpayer to transform a traditional IRA into a Roth after paying a one-time tax.
Ted Weschler, a deputy of Warren Buffett at Berkshire Hathaway, told ProPublica he supported reforms to rein in giant Roth IRAs like his. Weschler’s account hit the $264.4 million mark in 2018 after he converted a whopping $130 million and paid a one-time tax years earlier, according to tax records obtained by ProPublica.
In a statement to ProPublica earlier this week, Weschler didn’t address any specific reform plan but said: “Although I have been an enormous beneficiary of the IRA mechanism, I personally do not feel the tax shield afforded me by my IRA is necessarily good tax policy. To this end, I am openly supportive of modifying the benefit afforded to retirement accounts once they exceed a certain threshold.”
Wyden’s proposal also targeted the stuffing of undervalued assets into Roths, which congressional investigators had flagged as the foundation of many large accounts. Under the Wyden draft bill, purchasing an asset for less than fair market value would strip the tax benefits from the entire IRA.
ProPublica’s investigation showed that Thiel purchased founder’s shares of the company that would become PayPal at $0.001 per share in 1999. At that price, he was able to buy 1.7 million shares and still fall below the $2,000 maximum contribution limit Congress had set at the time for Roth IRAs. PayPal later disclosed in an SEC filing that those shares, and others issued that year, were sold at “below fair value.”
A spokesperson for Thiel accepted detailed questions on Thiel’s behalf last week, then never responded to phone calls or emails.
The RISE Act was never introduced because, Wyden said, Republicans controlled the Senate at the time and made clear they opposed the effort. The proposal was also heartily opposed by promoters of nontraditional retirement investments. One of them wrote, at the time: “Everything about the RISE Act Proposal is opposed to capitalism and economic freedom.”
Following ProPublica’s story on Roths, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said the way to address the gargantuan accounts would be a wealth tax, which would impose an annual levy on households with a net worth over $50 million.
Warren tweeted a link to the story and wrote: “Yes, our tax system is rigged with loopholes and tax shelters for billionaires like Peter Thiel. And stories like this will keep popping up until we pass a simple #WealthTax on assets over $50 million to make these guys pay their fair share.”
Yes, our tax system is rigged with loopholes and tax shelters for billionaires like Peter Thiel. And stories like this will keep popping up until we pass a simple #WealthTax on assets over $50 million to make these guys pay their fair share. https://t.co/6aP6l8tG3A
Daniel Hemel, a tax law professor at the University of Chicago who has been researching large Roths, said that Congress should simply prohibit IRAs from purchasing assets that are not bought and sold on the public market.
“There’s no reason people should be able to be gambling their retirement assets on pre-IPO stocks,” Hemel said.
He added that lawmakers should go beyond reforms targeting the accounts directly and address a potential estate tax dodge related to Roths.
If the holder of a large Roth dies, the retirement account is considered part of the taxable estate, and a significant tax is due. But, Hemel said, there’s nothing to stop an American who has amassed a giant Roth from renouncing their citizenship and moving abroad to a country with no estate taxes. It’s rare, but not unheard of, for the ultrawealthy to renounce their U.S. citizenship to avoid taxes.
Under federal law, U.S. citizens who renounce their citizenship are taxed that day on assets that have risen in value but are not yet sold. But there’s an exception for certain kinds of assets, Hemel said, including Roth retirement accounts.
Thiel acquired citizenship in New Zealand in 2011. Unlike the United States, New Zealand has no estate tax. It’s not clear whether estate taxes figured into Thiel’s decision.
A spokesperson for Thiel did not immediately respond to questions on Friday about whether estate taxes factored into Thiel’s decision to become a New Zealand citizen.
In his application for citizenship, Thiel wrote to a government minister: “I have long admired the people, culture, business environment and government of New Zealand, as well as the encouragement which is given to investment, business and trade in New Zealand.”
Patching the hole in the expatriation law, Hemel said, “should be a top policy priority because we’re talking about, with Thiel alone, billions of dollars of taxes.”
by Justin Elliott, Patricia Callahan and James Bandler for ProPublica via Creative Commons.
Last week, ProPublica published the story of how PayPal co-founder and tech investor Peter Thiel was able to turn a Roth IRA initially worth around $2,000 into a jaw-dropping $5 billion tax-free retirement stash in just 20 years.
Originally published by ProPublicaProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.
The story is even more remarkable because Congress created the Roth IRA in 1997 to encourage middle-class Americans to save for their golden years. Most Americans have struggled to do even that; the average account was worth about $39,000 in 2018. But Thiel and other billionaires have managed to turn their mundane Roths into giant onshore tax shelters.
Thiel was able to launch his Roth into the stratosphere through a complicated strategy involving the purchase of nonpublic stock at bargain prices — the kind of deal most people can’t access. Experts say it risked running afoul of rules designed to prevent IRAs from becoming illegal tax shelters. (Thiel’s spokesman didn’t respond to questions.)
Other ultrawealthy Americans have used different means to build Roths worth tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden is now looking at how to end the use of the Roth as “yet another tax dodge that allows mega millionaires and billionaires to avoid paying taxes.”
How are they able to do it while you can’t? Check out our explainer of one way the Roth works for the ultrawealthy and not for you.
by Nadia Sussman, Sherene Strausberg and Justin Elliott for ProPublica and published via Creative Commons
The number of multimillion-dollar individual retirement accounts has soared in the past decade, as more wealthy Americans use the tax-advantaged vehicles to shield fortunes from income taxes, according to new data released by Congress today.
The data reveals for the first time the staggering amount of money socked away in tax-free mega Roth accounts: more than $15 billion held by just 156 Americans.
The new data also shows that the number of Americans with traditional and Roth IRAs worth over $5 million tripled, to more than 28,000, between 2011 and 2019.
The data was requested by Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and House Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., following ProPublica’s story last month exploring the rise of mega Roth IRAs. The story, based on confidential IRS data obtained by ProPublica, revealed that tech mogul Peter Thiel has the largest known Roth IRA, worth $5 billion as of 2019.
In a Senate Finance hearing on retirement on Wednesday, Wyden said such massive accounts underscore the country’s inequalities. “Individuals at the very top — at the very, very top — are able to game the rules to get ahead and basically abuse taxpayer-subsidized accounts with pricey accountants and lawyers,” Wyden said. “This increases the already existing retirement inequality between retirement haves and have-nots to an extreme level.”
Roth IRAs were established in 1997 to incentivize middle-class Americans to save for retirement. Congress imposed strict limits, including a cap on how much can be contributed to the accounts each year, which today stands at $6,000 for most Americans. The average Roth account was worth $39,108 at the end of 2018.
But a select set of the ultrawealthy have managed to get around limits set by Congress and transformed the vehicle into a powerful onshore tax shelter. One way they’ve done that is by buying nonpublic shares of companies with extremely low valuations. That allows them to tuck a huge volume of shares into a retirement account. Congressional investigators have previously found that the IRS has struggled to enforce rules around these investments, including whether the valuations are legitimate.
Once money is deposited into a Roth account, any proceeds from investment gains are tax free. So, for example, a Roth owner who sells a successful tech investment for a $1 million profit gets to keep all of the money, saving a potential $200,000 in federal taxes. The savings can then be reinvested, tax free, as long as the Roth holder waits till he or she is at least 59 and a half before withdrawing the money. Owners of traditional IRAs, by contrast, enjoy tax-free growth but must pay income tax on withdrawals. The Roth is considered the more powerful tax-avoidance tool for the wealthy.
The latest numbers come from analysts at Congress’ nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation. They update a widely cited study from the Government Accountability Office that released figures on large IRAs in 2011.
The new figures show that, as of 2019, nearly 3,000 taxpayers held Roth IRAs worth at least $5 million. (The total of more than 28,000 people holding IRAs of that size includes both traditional and Roth IRAs.) The aggregate value of those Roth IRAs was more than $40 billion.
Both Wyden and Neal said in statements that the new figures show the need for reform. Neal said that “IRAs are intended to help Americans achieve long-term financial security, not to enable those who already have extraordinary wealth to avoid paying their fair share in taxes and deepen existing inequalities in our nation.” Neal said earlier this month, in the wake of the ProPublica article, that the Ways and Means Committee would draft a bill to “stop IRAs from being exploited.”
For his part, Wyden said, “As the Finance Committee continues to develop proposals to make the tax code more fair, closing these loopholes will be a top priority.” Wyden first proposed an overhaul of IRA rules to prevent the accounts from being used as large tax shelters several years ago. One reform that is being discussed would prohibit investors from putting assets that are not available to ordinary Americans, such as shares of startup companies, into retirement accounts.
Wyden and Neal’s push for reforms comes as Congress is considering bipartisan retirement legislation. The bills are being pitched as helping ordinary Americans save for retirement, including by proposing to automatically enroll workers in employer-sponsored retirement plans. But they also include perks for the retirement and financial industries, such as relaxing rules in ways that are seen as a boon for insurers. And buried deep inside the two complex bills are provisions that could make it harder for the IRS to crack down on the ultrawealthy who dodge tax rules.
by Justin Elliott, James Bandler and Patricia Callahan for ProPublica and published via Creative Commons License
There’s a joke somewhere in here but it’s hard to see it through the tears
Woody Allen’s onscreen counterpart, Alvy Singer, complaining about Hollywood Award Shows in “Annie Hall” remarked that a category of award for “Greatest Fascist Dictator” would not surprise him, and that Adolf Hitler would probably win.
Amazon, viewed from some neutral future date or by aliens from another planet would surely win the award for “Greatest Company to Amass Wealth & Power by Intentionally Losing Money” award. Or maybe just “World’s Biggest Ponzi Scheme”.
For now the fawning books and articles on the greatness of “Bezos’ Behmouth” continue to pile up.
An exception to the fawning fan fiction is “Monopolized: Life in the Age of Corporate Power” by David Dayen. The author also commented cogently on the current situation with Amazon and MGM. His thoughts shed much needed light on the simple and yet sadly overlooked truth about Amazon: its core mission is to monopolize not just online sales but all transactions that take place in the economy where a “cut” of those transactions can be extracted.
What’s with all these awards? They’re always giving out awards. Best Fascist Dictator: Adolf Hitler. — Alvy Singer
This viewpoint, it would seem, can be traced back to a rare case where Jeff Bezos let his guard down and accidentally explained a core concept of the Amazon business model.
He said, simply: “Your margin is my opportunity”.
With this seemingly innocuous and widely misinterpreted phrase he unleashed the dogs of hell on the world of commerce. The MGM deal, according to Dayen, who is also editor of The American Prospect, is yet another attempt to gut an industry with techniques designed to use predatory pricing strategies to crush all rivals.
The sub-head from his article states: “The company wants to control pricing on everything, and funnel as many transactions to itself as possible.”
Meanwhile, somehow, this statement is finally being generally understood in its real context.
Yet what is astounding is that this is not a supposition or an accusation, but rather is a stated fact, and how this company has behaved and operated for decades.
Putting 2+2 together, the common interpretation that there is an “innocent” pro-customer meaning possible, is finally being seen for the absurdity that it is.
Simple, Effective and Disgusting: Selling below cost or at a loss to harm competition
We’ve seen how that goes. In this case, since Amazon does not make any data available on the profitability of various business segments, using nearly $9 billion to enhance its “free with Prime” business creates yet another loss-leader opportunity to destroy the margins of all other streaming platforms, who, like other businesses actually have to make a profit or at least break even, unlike Amazon due to its cross-subsidization of products and services.
Amazon wants to control all economic activity in the United States and the world. It wants a cut of every transaction. — D. Dayen
Amazon as “cross-subsidized content devourer” is how Dayen described the inevitable outcome of the deal in his article.
He also succinctly argues that by using its virtually unlimited power and resources to devour an ever larger share of the market, ultimately the result will be to drive up costs for competitors (for I.P., production and star power) and achieve the goal of squeezing the already slim margins for those poor schmucks (or rich schmucks like Disney, HBO, Netflix, etc.) that don’t have an unlimited budget for intentional losses.
The playbook is so obvious and familiar that it’s almost laughable. That is, if not for the death and destruction that always follow in the next chapters of this plot schema.
They pick on an established industry where no one will have sympathy for the rich victims – did anyone feel sorry for Borders or other large book retailers? Does anyone cry over the loss of Diapers.com or Quidisi? When Birkenstock complains does anyone listen?
How can gutting the streaming industry or unassailable giants like Disney and HBO be bad? Isn’t it just capitalism at its finest? Should we start preparing the award now for “Greatest Consolidator of Content in History”?
But what about the “loss leader” system? What about the ultimate outcome of less competition and higher prices overall, an obvious harm to consumers, regardless of how stupid and convoluted the route is to get there?
By moving the market in a way that will make streaming a terrible business for any company that has to compete with this, “oughta be illegal” script, margins will, if the gambit succeeds, face a similar fate to the one that anyone who used to be in the retail book industry, or any of the other entire industries that Amazon has received kudos for destroying, knows all too well.
Dayen also makes the point that, once this thinly veiled ploy is seen for what it is, the harm, not only to Amazon’s competitors but to the general public, should be obvious and impossible to ignore.
Citing the similarities with the recently brought antitrust action by the Washington, DC attorney general, it is exactly this kind of pernicious practice, that Amazon has not only gotten away with for decades, but Bezos has been lionized for “inventing”.
That lawsuit, which deals with an Amazon clause in 3rd party marketplace terms and conditions (since altered to disguise its true intent) that 3rd party sellers must sell anywhere outside Amazon’s marketplace at the same or higher price that they have listed on Amazon, is a sign of a gradual shift toward seeing the real meaning of Amazon’s behavior.
Since there are massive, exorbitant fees added to every transaction for all 3rd party sellers, the only way for them to make any profit at all is to tack on the cost of those fees, meaning artificially higher prices.
Amazon has ways to retaliate through “dark patterns” of its own special stripe, by manipulating buyers behaviors on its web site, making sure that sellers that don’t toe the line will get, essentially, zero sales.
For Amazon this kind of bullying and blackmail is a “win-win-win”. They see and have tattooed into their DNA all pain, suffering and loss for anyone other than the company (AMZN) as a gain for them.
3rd party sellers caught in hell trying to survive while paying fees up to 43% or more without recourse to try and recoup by selling anywhere else at lower prices?
Amazon congratulates themselves. Sellers undercutting each other, in spite of those fees in an effort to behave like a “mini-Amazon” and getting into a race to the bottom death match with each other? Yippee! Great for Amazon, when they are dead, there are always new victims waiting in line to enter the cage.
How about sellers that obtain goods illegally, counterfeit, illegal imports, stolen products, remainders and aftermarket overstock? They are GREAT for Amazon because they put even more pressure on the individual, honest sellers to immolate themselves trying to survive (and eventually die via pricing suicide) while Amazon can claim to be offering lower prices!
Oh, and when they “do their best” to stop all those illegal sellers, albeit at a snails pace, they are bailed out by section 230 and can point to their “partners in crime”, the counterfeiters, the knockoffs from China, the illegal imports and the stolen and aftermarket goods and say: “We tried our best, these are just a few bad apples” laughing all the way through every board meeting.
“Your margin is my opportunity”, indeed.
Above: Photo Collage by Lynxotic
There are no mitigating factors here. There is no “good guy” or customer obsessed hero. Just evil and the dead or dying. Wake the fuck up, America.
The praise and adulation continues, even as the $400 million yacht is being prepared for its maiden voyage
It’s as if Bezos is given award after award for the “genius” of selling 1$ bills for .75 cents. Championed for using a strategy that masquerades short term margin destruction as “customer obsession”, pretending that the dumping levels of pricing won’t in the long run flip into price gouging and the destruction of competition.
Somehow the massive detriment to consumers and the society at large is overlooked amid all the parties celebrating the “genius”.
But have the chickens finally come home to roost? Is anyone seeing a pattern of systematic use of the same tactics over and over, applied to each and every sector that Amazon chooses to “disrupt”? They didn’t get the nickname “grim reaper” for nothing. The problem is that it was meant as a compliment.
It is a sea change in the antitrust orientation, a sea change that is desperately needed, and with Lina Kahn and Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu, it might be just over the horizon. Could even have a chance to come about.
That change, so long overdue, could finally begin the process of dismantling the damage wrought and and still to come, if there is no interdiction.
The worm will eventually turn. When? After decades of obvious abuse and criminal behavior, completely and willfully ignored (too complicated to see).
Will there eventually be so many victims that they will outnumber the duped and the sycophants? Stay tuned.
This is a world where four major banks control most of our money, four airlines shuttle most of us around the country, and four major cell phone providers connect most of our communications. If you are sick you can go to one of three main pharmacies to fill your prescription, and if you end up in a hospital almost every accessory to heal you comes from one of a handful of large medical suppliers.
Over the last forty years our choices have narrowed, our opportunities have shrunk, and our lives have become governed by a handful of very large and very powerful corporations.
Today, practically everything we buy, everywhere we shop, and every service we secure comes from a heavily concentrated market.
Dayen, the editor of the American Prospect and author of the acclaimed Chain of Title, provides a riveting account of what it means to live in this new age of monopoly and how we might resist this corporate hegemony.
Through vignettes and vivid case studies Dayen shows how these monopolies have transformed us, inverted us, and truly changed our lives, at the same time providing readers with the raw material to make monopoly a consequential issue in American life and revive a long-dormant antitrust movement.
Above: Photo by Michael Krahn on Unsplash with elements added by Lynxotic
Coming after a frenzied run-up the hand wringing is no surprise
I many ways it seems as if Bitcoin and Cryptocurrencies appeared suddenly in 2021 out of the head of Zeus. Protean and fully formed, with billions and trillions in market caps, and all your sisters, brothers, cousins and even the Uber driver climbing aboard.
And the FOMO blog posts, where every hour an innocent reader is assaulted by a story, perhaps true, perhaps exaggerated and certainly foolhardy in retrospect, of an innocent putting their life savings into Dogecoin and suddenly having, theoretically, huge gains at their disposal.
Meanwhile, craggy faced, ancient stock market mavens would interject famous last words that now appear to be wise. However, all that notwithstanding, this week’s crash is nothing new or unexpected.
In reality, as can be seen from the graphic below, provided by Visual Capitalist, there have been so may crashes / corrections and doomsday prognostications since 2012 in Bitcoin that it seems like a miracle the there’s any thing such as Crypto at all.
There’s a reason it’s not dead and it’s in the DNA
The resiliency, far from a shock to those that have been around more than a fortnight, is kinda the point. When Satoshi Nakamoto built the system architecture of Bitcoin and since then inspired the over 8000 new crypto entities that have been developed, it was, just like the internet itself that was build to survive WWIII, supposed to be as indestructible as possible.
Like physical gold, which is considered have been adopted as a store of value partly due to its indestructibility and immutability (alchemy notwithstanding) the volatility and sometimes violent-seeming life story of Bitcoin is a necessary adjust to its role in finance, commerce and even individual monetary survival.
Not for the faint of heart, perhaps
While the mainstream and those forces opposed to the adoption or survival of Bitcoin and Crypto are out in force pointing to the “unsuitability” of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies for any “legitimate” use as a trade or savings vehicle, the progress so far, in spite of the obvious fact that volatility has always been baked in to the situation, is an obvious refutation of that viewpoint.
Will the current drop in dollar values relative to Bitcoin end it’s popularity and strip it of the respect it has thusfrar earned among many? In a word, no. In essence what is happening is, as many have foretold, what happens often and repeatedly, the excess attention and dollars that were pumped into crypto by you brother, sister, cousin and Uber driver are now getting blown out, since those were more speculation and psychosis than any kind of vote for viability or permanency.
And, why not? Where was to concern, shock and hesitation by the masses when the prices seemed to only rise for weeks and even months across so many products and coins it was impossible to keep count? Why was to feeding frenzy and the mania-like piling on not ignored as an anomaly?
The herd does as the herd will do. Diamond hands and Paper hands will ebb and flow as long as the rivers flow to the sea and humans herd like buffalo. And, in all likelihood, dollars and euros and yen will be long forgotten when the last bitcoin is transferred to the final wallet in the sky.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not a direct offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation or endorsement of any products, services, or companies. Lynxotic does not provide investment, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article.
If you are stuck on the word ‘fiat’ this post can help you (everyone else too)
In a single, 14 word reply to a follower (@TheRealShifo) that asked “Yo Elon what do you think about the peeps who are angry at you because of crypto?” He gave a simple answer that is the often unmentioned, yet most important, question regarding crypto vs. fiat, government issued, currency such as the US dollar.
Looking around during the ongoing frenzy surrounding crypto and digital finance you’ll see countless ‘news” stories and blog posts comparing, or pretending to compare cryptocurrencies, especially the two biggest Bitcoin and Ethereum (as coin sometimes referred to as “Ether”) and they virtually always quote the “price” fluctuations of those coins as a certain number of dollars and cents.
Interestingly I have yet to see any of these “comparisons” use the reverse valuation method, such as, “the US dollar is currently worth .00002703 Bitcoin. Can you imagine everything using that as a standard – CNBC quoting stock prices in Bitcoin, your house is “worth” 32 Bitcoins (if you’re in California, for example).
The reason this comes off sounding strange and ridiculous is that all communication related to the US dollar, which has been a fiat currency since abandoning any “backing” (such as gold) and continuing on by decree (or fiat) of the government with no backing other than than decree, also carries a decree (tacit) not to undermine it in public.
So when Elon says:
“The true battle is between fiat & crypto. On balance, I support the latter.”
The true battle is between fiat & crypto. On balance, I support the latter.
Simple and straightforward and yet intentionally shrouded in mystery
Musk is directly comparing crypto, generally, and fiat currencies around the world that “float” against each other. And by inference, doing so in terms of the difference between a fiat currency like the US Dollar and a crypto currency, like Bitcoin.
A fiat currency is money that is not backed by a physical commodity like gold, but instead backed by the government that issued it. Most modern currencies, such as the U.S. dollar, euro, pound and yen, are fiat money.
from Wikipedia
The term fiat derives from the Latin word fiat, meaning “let it be done” used in the sense of an order, decree or resolution.
— common Definition
The fact that Bitcoin was created as a digital alternative to fiat money stands at the forefront of that point. The fact that it was designed precisely to counter the drawbacks and dangers of a system based on fiat paper money (or digital ledgers of those paper dollars such as your bank balance or any method to keep track of how many “imaginary” paper dollars you “have”) is exactly the real issue at hand.
photo credit: twitter
It’s no secret that many attack those goals and intentions superficially and dismiss the entire discussion with a wave of the hand. They willfully use the complexity of the cryptographic solutions, at the heart of cryptocurrency, as a way to gloss over the real and substantive problems being targeted.
They prey on the ignorance of the majority to try and discount out of hand any value at all for the movement and the various products.
Opening up the door to this exact exchange and characterizing it as a “battle” in one fowl swoop clarifies and simplifies the real issues and the real reason for the existence, and according to many, including Elon Musk, the need for monetary “reform” or change via a shift toward crypto.
Opening up the door to this exact exchange and characterizing it as a “battle” in one fowl-swoop clarifies and simplifies the real issues and the real reason for the existence of, and the need for, monetary “reform” or change via a shift toward crypto.
D.L.
The “price” of Bitcoin or any other crypto currency on any given day has almost nothing whatsoever to do with that debate.
Speculation abounds but not just in Crypto
The “price” is a function of, mostly, speculation and scarcity, due, in the case of Bitcoin to the mining cap, or at least a perceived scarcity. And additionally the various perceived advantages of crypto such as privacy, decentralization, use of block chain systems, etc.
But the price is like the smoke above the battlefield, not the reason for the battle or any indicator who is winning or who is on the side of might or right.
Two major questions that arise from this tweet and the potential shift toward a clearer and simpler dialogue on crypto are the following:
Is crypto generally, and Bitcoin / Ether more specifically established and entrenched enough to withstand the coming backlash from governments that feel threatened and other status quo institutions that will do whatever it takes to discourage or even stamp out crypto usage?
Will the very battle itself, that Elon Musk says is the current “true” battle, bring even more attention to the weaknesses and problems with the current fiat money system and thereby increase, perhaps inadvertently yet massively, the size of the battle and its stakes?
Alternative systems of trade have been tolerated in the US for some time now. How are those air miles doing? What about the chips and points for perks you got at the Indian Casino? Is it too late to outlaw all crypto without causing a revolution in the streets?
The other side of the (clipped) coin
It is truly surprising to see how little is to be found in the media about the deeper reasons for the rise of crypto. How it sometimes seems like direct criticism of fiat currency is almost taboo.
Naturally any internet search will find many “rabbit hole” sources for all kinds of information critical of the current monetary system, the same system the near total collapse of which in 2008 inspired the creation of bitcoin.
It appears that Elon Musk is emphasizing, in a subdued manner, exactly the way that the nonsense-furor over huge price gains or declines is completely missing the actual point. The “true battle”.
Many stories in the media and millions of private comments are currently following a kind of convoluted logic – first the popularity of crypto (which is linked to the unpopularity of the very messed up fiat system) artificially and massively increases prices in many crypto assets.
This “bubble”, a typical outcome of human herding behavior in financial markets, inevitably bursts or sees large setbacks. Then the coin or crypto system itself is blamed for the human stupidity and greed that caused the distortions of price, just like happened in the dot-com bubble and the 2007 housing bubble and subsequent crash.
The difference is that the crypto bubble, in an interesting way, is in reality due to a surge in skepticism toward fiat currencies, a boom in the prevalence of mistrust toward governments and a combination of fear and greed that is growing, not dissipating.
Although many have rightly criticized Elon Musk’s tweets and odd Saturday Night Live appearance, and there is a kind of mini-backlash (growing?) against all things Musk, in this case it is a healthy and wise tweet that we have shown above.
Reframing, or more aptly refocusing the discussion away from prices and speculative profits and back to the real reasons that cryptos were initially created and why it has gained such massive support is a welcome shift. That this reframing comes from the likes of Musk himself, is fitting and who better to put forth a message to simplify and clarify the nature of the real “battle” at hand.
The following video has some interesting data and arguments for, and mainly against, the fiat regime under which we have lived for most of the last century. Although, in a sense, a kind of advertisement for Gold and Silver, the overview is nevertheless accurate and does not exaggerate the dangers and issues that revolve around the fiat system.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not a direct offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation or endorsement of any products, services, or companies. Lynxotic does not provide investment, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article.
Haters like Buffet and Mark Cuban’s cheerleading are off base and spreading confusion
Disclaimer first: This opinion article is not investment advice and does not advocate buying any investment vehicle or currency
There are so many misconceptions propagated far and wide these days that it’s hard to choose a place to start. First it’s important to recognize that crypto currencies are not stocks or companies, yes that’s obvious but one of the biggest “anti” argument these days is that there’s an absurdity to the aggregate total value of a “coin” being more than the market cap of the stock of a particular company.
“Ethereum is now worth more than Bank of America”, this nonsense comparison goes, as if the market cap of a stock and the price of a coin times the number of coins in existence has any meaning whatsoever.
Following this logic, however, beneath all the hype, both pro-crypto and anti-crypto, lies a hidden thread to an actual underlying truth.
Though based on obvious common sense, this thread is potentially confusing and convoluted, to say the least. But without seeing it clearly the misconceptions will just keep getting more ridiculous.
In order to illustrate the conundrum a bit of background is needed. For example:
Stocks, in the US are priced in dollars. But how are dollars priced? Isn’t just as accurate to say that when the “price” of the DJIA moves higher (3,4050 at this writing) it is the value of the dollar, in relation to the DJIA that went down?
While this requires a kind of mental gymnastics, these are only due to the constant bombardment meant to keep you from seeing this 100% valid way of viewing stock valuations based in dollars.
There’s another kind of tacit misinformation and that is stating that “inflation” is only relevant when it’s measured by the government. For example if the “bull market” that began in 2009 and continues into 2021 represented a huge increase in stock prices, that is asset inflation.
The inverse of asset inflation is a reduction in dollar value. Less shares of a given stock can be bought for the same number of dollars. The dollars are worth less.
And further, crypto, such as BitCoin is measured as having more or less value in dollars. Who is to say the massive rise in the dollar “value” of BitCoin is not representative of a decline in the “intrinsic” value of dollars.
The truth is often hidden in plain sight and that is what drives traditional markets
And that is precisely the point. BitCoin’s existence, which is locked in the mind of Satoshi Nakamoto (if he indeed exists) was indicated cryptically (no pun intended) to be a kind of answer to the instability of the global financial system as was evidence in the crisis of 2008. Taking place nearly concurrently with the birth of the idea of BitCoin.
Seeing the dollar as having a “stable” value and measuring a companies value, via it’s share price, is, let’s just say, perhaps 100 times more absurd than the Dogecoin dog.
Why? Because, for nearly a century the dollar is not backed or moored to anything but the government’s hope that it will retain value and laws that prohibit you and I from using other vehicles as “legal tender”.
The data (and opinions) on this are seemingly endless and yet absolutely critical to understanding our monetary system and where crypto may or may not fit in.
Horseshoe Nails and The Isle of Yap
Many interesting historical facts point toward the reality that money and coinage has always been just as much about the abstract belief in the system, more than any particular “intrinsic” value.
On the Micronesian Isle of Yap there was a functioning monetary system based on huge stones. A New York Times article, published in 1971 described the curious system:
“Every piece has an owner, and everyone knows who the owner is. Even when the money changes hands, it usually stays put. Yapese stone money is the largest and heaviest “coin” in the world.
In earlier days, brave islanders paddled by canoe 300 miles across open ocean to Palau where they cut slices from huge stalactites and brought them back as money. The value depended on how many men were drowned bringing them back. Nowadays, value is usually determined by measurements. We heard various versions, ranging from $10 radial inch to $42 a foot.”
Another article explains that many “wealthy” home (hut) owners displayed their money by leaving it leaning against the front of the house, where all could see the prosperity.
And, as for the prevention of fraud and corruption in any monetary system? Could any be more corrupt than the one that led to credit default swaps and mortgage-backed securities imploding and all the BS that nearly brought down the world’s banking system?
And that is not new either. In the 1800s traveling bank examiners journeyed throughout the US to check on the gold reserves claimed by various banks. More often than not, they found far less gold than was claimed (in today’s fractional banking system little attempt is made to reduce the leverage in the system).
A common, clever, trick to try to “leverage” what little gold was actually on hand was to pile gold coins and ingots on top of a bed of horseshoe nails, hoping that the examiner would weigh the entire concoction only, and never notice the bogus hidden attempt to bolster the weight.
Bitcoin’s system at least attempts to circumvent this typically human brand of fraud and corruption.
In the article “What is Cryptomining” on Techspot a chart was published to illustrate how Satoshi Nakamoto tried to solve the classic trust delimma with the proof of work mining system.
“For example, if Alice has $100 at the beginning of the day, she could promise Bob, Charlie, and David independently that she’d send them each $100 by the end of the day. While Alice could show them that she owns $100 and they’d all be content and agree to the transaction, Alice only has $100. Thus, if at the end of the day, the public ledger (which once finalized is set in stone, so to speak) includes 3 transactions initiated by Alice for $100, the system would be broken and no one would want to use it.
With a centralized system such as in modern day banks, there would exist a single ledger that can validate how much money a certain individual has, and thus it can guarantee that the customer cannot spend more than they own. When talking about a decentralized, peer-to-peer system, however, who’s there to stop a clever individual from spending their money multiple times quickly before getting caught?
To address this potential issue, crypto miners enter the playing field. Essentially, miners play the role of the decentralized banker, and will perform the required gruntwork to ensure that the system is functioning as expected without double-spending. In return for their work, they will be rewarded with some cryptocurrency.”
Buffet, Cuban, Musk & Munger
In clonclusion, Buffet, Munger and The Wall Street Journal may have knowledge and experience but they have also derived benefit from a system that favors those already holding capital, one that also has a tendency to crush those trying to build it.
So, it’s fairly obvious that they are “talking their book” and data mining to produce a self-congratulatory outcome, when they expound on all the reasons that they hate crypto (Munger even called it “disgusting”).
As for Musk and Cuban, what’ve they got to lose? At least they “get it”, at least they are open to the idea of a future that has crypto as a part of the financial system. But where will they stand if there is government resistance in a big way, and if attempts to stop the entire crypto movement or “de-fang” it in ways that make it less viable as a true alternative to the status quo? That, my friend, will be the 1000 BitCoin question.
In her new book, Klobuchar tries to connect the historical roots of antitrust actions to populism and her own ancestry. That’s not all, however. Although difficult, particularly for readers who are not legal scholars, there’s an important and deeper historic thread here that she is aiming to contribute to.
That job is to find a way to illuminate how the digital age, with all its challenges and complexities, can come to terms with the simple question of how to measure damage that is being done by big tech monopolies, through sheer size, power and lack of external accountability.
Moreover, there is an issue of how antitrust law and practice veered away from the remedies and goals, first established during the Gilded Age, toward a laissez-fair, anti-regulatory stance that gained steam in the Regan years.
That shift is, in many ways, to blame for the current extreme state characterized by dangerous levels of concentrated wealth and power by big tech.
This effort may seem like one that is doomed to being ignored by all but the already long-since converted. But, make no mistake, it is a topic that will grow, reverberate and become more relevant as the current administration in Washington consolidates and comes into its own.
“People have just gotten beaten down. I wanted to show the public and elected officials that you’re not the first kids on the block with this. What do you think it was like back when trusts literally controlled everyone on the Supreme Court, or literally elected members of the Senate before they were elected by the public?”
— Amy Klobuchar, in Wired interview with Steven Levey
When President Biden recently nominated Lina M. Khan to the Federal Trade Commission, in addition to Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu, who announced earlier this month he would join the National Economic Council, he set forth a clear path for an antitrust direction that has the potential to be more than just rhetoric and window dressing.
Khan is an unequivocal proponent of a new era of antitrust, one that is, not coincidentally, along the lines of what Klobuchar advocates. Likely sharing these ultra clear views from her long and celebrated research, Khan, along with Wu, is a key addition to Biden’s growing roster of Big Tech critics, and there is already a blueprint for actions and cases that will build to a crescendo over the next several years.
Biden’s call for the repeal of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, meanwhile, a hotly contested and possibly flawed legal shield some feel is exploited by Internet platforms, is another indicator of the tenor of the coming actions.
In a sense, with this bestselling book [on Amazon: #1 in Political Economy, #1 in Government Management, #1 in Business Law (Books)] the gargantuan task of connecting the culpability of massive, nearly infinitely powerful behemoths, each in it’s own territory, to the social and economic catastrophes that they’ve brought down on the world.
However, while politicians like Klobuchar may not have the charisma and energy to set a fire under the population, it is the very deeds themselves that will eventually conspire to ignite an uprising and put pressure on the government and the courts to take real, substantive measures. And with young, new faces and minds such as possessed by Khan and Wu, ultimately there is a bulwark of criticism against monopolist abuses building in government and among the public at large.
“I am never saying, ‘Get rid of their products.’ But let’s have more of the products that give you more choices. You can keep one product, but it’s better to have other products, because we’re not China.”
Amy Klobuchar in Wired interview with Steven Levey
In response to Klobuchar’s quote above Steven Levey in Wired wrote; “In other words, Facebook could keep it’s main app, but the public might benefit if Instagram and WhatsApp were not Mark Zuckerberg productions.”
While this kind of “moderate” view may not be the earth shattering remedy that would turn the juggernauts around in a heartbeat, from Zuckerberg’s perspective it would not be ideal, to say the least.
And, since we have seen the unfettered and viral growth of big tech, for at least a quarter century in some cases, and since there was a aura of hero worship afforded their leaders for most of that time, a break-up, such as that could ultimately turn out to be the beginning of more sweeping changes. A welcome outcome for those that have been harmed the various monopolistic structures that rule nearly all our lives, or at least it seems, at times.
Levey then asked Klobuchar why legislators so often embarrass themselves in hearings with irrelevant partisanship, clueless technical questions, and time-wasting grandstanding. Her response;
“Welcome to my life,” she says. “I get it—there’s going to be hearings that are irritating to people who know a lot. But that’s a great argument for tech to use because they don’t want this oversight.”
Amy Klobuchar in Wired interview with Steven Levey
In defense of using the word “antitrust in the title, while also advocating its eradication in future she responded:
“Well, I thought antitrust was an interesting word”. “It’s not only about this body of law; it’s also about not trusting anyone.”
Amy Klobuchar in Wired interview with Steven Levey
Perhaps it is more the course of history that led to the current and incredibly extreme situation and obscene dominance by big tech that is what should never have be trusted to arise in the first place.
Perhaps these firms will one day be seen, looking back from future generations, as a temporarily necessary, but evil mistake of history, as was the toothless interpretation of laws that led to their rise from “scrappy underdog startups” into malignant monopolies run amok.
The 14 day countdown to January 6th “Coup-Day” has begun
After threatening to veto the $900 billion stimulus package that was passed by congress on Monday, Trump has so far not officially done so and has not yet made further comments on the matter. The possibility of an actual veto means that the bill would not go forward without either changes to appease Trump or a vote to override the veto, if it comes to that.
Representative Peter King, in an interview, not surprisingly called Trump a turncoat, essentially:
“Why didn’t the president say this before? Why did his administration say it had to be $600? They were the ones driving this. Nancy Pelosi wanted $2,000 all along, and I’m not a Pelosi fan. Bernie Sanders wanted $2,000. The president and his administration refused to give it, and now he’s trying to somehow double back. He’s leaving Republicans out there hanging out to dry after signing off on an agreement and asking us to vote for it.”
Rep. Representative Peter King on the Joe Piscopo Show
Surprise, Trump double-crossed his Republican friends, imagine that.
This chaotic situation, so typical during the Trump years, means that there are three probable outcomes for the stimulus package so desperately needed by Americans.:
1. If Trump vetoes the Stimulus package:
The resolution of the situation could be delayed, indefinitely. The law allows 10 days, excluding Sundays, to sign or veto legislation. If he chooses not to act, the bill normally would become law.
However, in this case the stimulus package was attached to the government funding bill. Current funding expires on December 28th. Since the separate defense bill has already been vetoed by Trump (see below), there will likely be a session next week to attempt to override that veto. An additional vote could be added.
2. Trump sides with Democrats and Republicans fight this new (insane) Trump / Democrat coalition.
In this case it’s possible that the Unanimous Consent request put forth by Democrats would be voted on, even by tomorrow, and passed. Unlikely but perhaps a Christmas miracle?
3. Trump signs the bill anyway
Third possibility is that the original version of the bill is ultimately not blocked by Trump (he flip-flops), and then could go forward without an over-ride to the threatened potential veto.
“If the president truly wants to join us in $2,000 payments, he should call upon Leader McCarthy to agree to our Unanimous Consent request”
—Speaker Nancy Pelosi
Democratic Reps. Rashid Tlaib, D-Mich., and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., announced on twitter that they have crafted an amendment to raise the amount of the stimulus checks.
“Me and @AOC have the amendment ready,” “Send the bill back, and we will put in the $2,000 we’ve been fighting for that your party has been blocking.”
Me and @AOC have the amendment ready. Send the bill back, and we will put in the $2,000 we’ve been fighting for that your party has been blocking. pic.twitter.com/GGXtJt77D9
“We spent months trying to secure $2,000 checks but Republicans blocked it. Trump needs to sign the bill to help people and keep the government open and we’re glad to pass more aid Americans need.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer
All of this along with a potential government shutdown on Monday, and today’s veto of the massive $740 billion defense bill that was already announced. The Senate voted overwhelmingly , with a veto-proof majority of 84 to 13, to approve the huge defense package but now face a necessary override vote.
Trump threatened to veto this bill because there is no repeal of Section 230 in it. A repeal of Section 230 would be huge news, though unlikely, as it is a law shielding internet companies from any liability for third party postings on their websites.
Mathematics and Philosophy meet in Fractal Pioneer’s Unique Career
Benoit Mandelbrot, the renowned French-American mathematician, died on October 14th, 2010 at the age of 85, and would have turned 96 today. To celebrate, Google published a doodle in his honor. An additional part of the celebration, Google launched an interactive “Explore” feature to allow users to view the endless patterns of the Mandelbrot set.
If you don’t know what a fractal is, simply put, it is a never-ending pattern. As defined by the Fractal Foundation: “They are infinitely complex patterns that are self-similar across different scales. They are created by repeating a simple process over and over in an ongoing feedback loop“. There are many examples of fractals in nature, in fact virtually all natural phenomena can be seen as being fractal based.
Mandelbrot is best known for fractal geometry, which is a term he coined in 1975 to describe a new branch of geometry that sought to explain of the irregular shapes and processes found within nature. His research has contributed valuable knowledge in many different fields including physics, medicine, geology, art and even finance.
Wide ranging influence continues to this day
His fractal theory have even found its way into pop culture, with graphical images created by his algorithm placed on t-shirts, posters, album covers, and even inspired a song called “Mandelbrot Set” by Jonathan Coulton and the text “The Colours of Infinity” by Arthur C. Clarke.
The mathematician won numerous awards, including the prestigious ‘Wolf Prize” in 1993 for Physics and even had a small asteroid named in his honor in 2000 called ’27500 Mandelbrot’.
Mandelbrot made significant contributions to the study of financial markets as a fractal based system that conforms to the concept that all of nature, and the entire universe, is also fractal based. A great body of overlapping work exists between the studies of the financial markets done by Mandelbrot himself as well as the way his fractal concepts figured into the work of Ralph Nelson Elliott and Robert Prechter of the ElliottWave.com.
The basis of Elliott’s theory is to describe price movements in financial markets as recurring, fractal wave patterns. This core insight was, in essence an outgrowth of the recognition that, when looking at various time frames in stock market charts, and therefore the human behavior that generated those patterns, the result is no different than looking at, for example, a sea coastline from various altitudes – which reveals a fractal.
The insight that produced this theory not only established and inspired the stock trading strategy based on the Elliott Wave Theory, but also more recently led to Robert Prechter’s Socionomic Theory. Socionomics is a new science using the benefits of Elliott Wave Theory in understanding not only finance and economics but also social behavior, popular culture and politics which can be seen as interpreting nature using fractal based concepts.
Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.
2008 and it’s Aftermath was a Wake Up Call that was Heeded by Virtually No-one
There are many good films on the economic collapse of 2008 (The Big Short is a favorite), also known as “The Great Recession” for fear of using the “D” word. Books too have opined on the lessons learned and, in some cases, taken dubious credit for the “rescue” of the world economy.
Watched or read closely, these books, with the exclusion of the self-congratulatory ones mentioned above, all point to a sobering conclusion: the underlying issues that nearly led to a protracted worldwide economic collapse were not solved or fixed but “the can was simply kicked further down the road”.
Unfortunately, they also agree that “further down the road”, currently around 11 years later, translates to “soon”. Accordingly, we’d all be wise to revisit the 2008 crisis and read some of the conclusions, in detail, that have been drawn from a deeper study of the remaining and very serious issues faced as we go further forward into the 2020’s.
So much of our destinies are tied to economics, it is always a wise area to begin to look for solutions to all macro-dilemmas
Of course, now, in a crowded life-raft of a planet, we also have the rising threat of Climate Change, the ongoing and terrifying challenges associated with global pandemics and sociopolitical trends, that point towards anything but harmonious co-operation, within and between societies around the world.
All the more reason to embrace what at times appears to be the lone bright spot, in this saga of seemingly-endless doom and gloom: we have educational resources available and the modern marvel of human-networked-communication devices (a.k.a. the internet and the software and hardware we use to access it), is becoming a more powerful ally by the hour.
Here are books we highly recommend to start your journey towards your heroic contributions to finding solutions and hope, as we look to the future:
The Great Devaluation: How to Embrace, Prepare, and Profit from the Coming Global Monetary Reset
The Great Devaluation is the #1 bestselling book that explains why the real crisis facing the world today is not the Coronavirus. The real crisis facing the world is explosive government debt and deficits. Governments are now left with no choice but to spend more than they make, borrow more than they can ever repay, and devalue their currencies to cover it all up.
Former Hollywood storyteller Adam Baratta brings monetary policy to life in this follow-up to his national bestseller, Gold Is A Better Way. You’ll learn how and why Federal Reserve polices have facilitated an explosion in government debt and have systematically undermined the world financial system in the name of profit. The result? An out of control system where financial inequality has become a ticking time bomb set to blow up the global economy. Click here to see “The Great Devaluation” and help Independent Bookstores. Also available on Amazon.
Crashed: How a Decade of Financial Crises Changed the World
Click here to see “Crashed” and help Independent Bookstores. Also available on Amazon.
We live in a world where dramatic shifts in the domestic and global economy command the headlines, from rollbacks in US banking regulations to tariffs that may ignite international trade wars. But current events have deep roots, and the key to navigating today’s roiling policies lies in the events that started it all–the 2008 economic crisis and its aftermath.
Despite initial attempts to downplay the crisis as a local incident, what happened on Wall Street beginning in 2008 was, in fact, a dramatic caesura of global significance that spiraled around the world, from the financial markets of the UK and Europe to the factories and dockyards of Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America, forcing a rearrangement of global governance. With a historian’s eye for detail, connection, and consequence, Adam Tooze brings the story right up to today’s negotiations, actions, and threats–a much-needed perspective on a global catastrophe and its long-term consequences. Click here to see “Crashed” and help Independent Bookstores. Also available on Amazon.
Manias, Panics, and Crashes: A History of Financial Crises, Seventh Edition
This seventh edition of an investment classic has been thoroughly revised and expanded following the latest crises to hit international markets. Renowned economist Robert Z. Aliber introduces the concept that global financial crises in recent years are not independent events, but symptomatic of an inherent instability in the international system.
Covering such topics as the history and anatomy of crises, speculative manias, and the lender of last resort, this book puts the turbulence of the financial world in perspective. Click here to see “Manias, Panics, and Crashes” and help Independent Bookstores. Also available on Amazon.
The Fed and Lehman Brothers: Setting the Record Straight on a Financial Disaster
The bankruptcy of the investment bank Lehman Brothers was the pivotal event of the 2008 financial crisis and the Great Recession that followed. Ever since the bankruptcy, there has been heated debate about why the Federal Reserve did not rescue Lehman in the same way it rescued other financial institutions, such as Bear Stearns and AIG. The Fed’s leaders from that time, especially former Chairman Ben Bernanke, have strongly asserted that they lacked the legal authority to save Lehman because it did not have adequate collateral for the loan it needed to survive.
Based on a meticulous four-year study of the Lehman case, The Fed and Lehman Brothers debunks the official narrative of the crisis. It shows that in reality, the Fed could have rescued Lehman but officials chose not to because of political pressures and because they underestimated the damage that the bankruptcy would do to the economy. The compelling story of the Lehman collapse will interest anyone who cares about what caused the financial crisis, whether the leaders of the Federal Reserve have given accurate accounts of their actions, and how the Fed can prevent future financial disasters. Click here to see “The Fed and Lehman Brothers” and help Independent Bookstores. Also available on Amazon.
Too Big to Fail: The Inside Story of How Wall Street and Washington Fought to Save the Financial System–And Themselves
Click here to see “Too Big to Fail” and help Independent Bookstores. Also available on Amazon.
Brand New for 2018: an updated edition featuring a new afterword to mark the 10th anniversary of the financial crisis. The brilliantly reported New York Times bestseller that goes behind the scenes of the financial crisis on Wall Street and in Washington to give the definitive account of the crisis, the basis for the HBO film.
In one of the most gripping financial narratives in decades, Andrew Ross Sorkin–a New York Times columnist and one of the country’s most respected financial reporters–delivers the first definitive blow-by-blow account of the epochal economic crisis that brought the world to the brink. Through unprecedented access to the players involved, he re-creates all the drama and turmoil of these turbulent days, revealing never-before-disclosed details and recounting how, motivated as often by ego and greed as by fear and self-preservation, the most powerful men and women in finance and politics decided the fate of the world’s economy. Click here to see “Too Big to Fail” and help Independent Bookstores. Also available on Amazon.
Crash of 2008 and What It Means: The New Paradigm for Financial Markets
Click here to see “The Crash of 2008“ and help Independent Bookstores. Also available on Amazon.
In the midst of one of the most serious financial upheavals since the Great Depression, George Soros, the legendary financier and philanthropist, writes about the origins of the crisis and proposes a set of policies that should be adopted to confront it.
Soros, whose breadth of experience in financial markets is unrivaled, places the crisis in the context of his decades of study of how individuals and institutions handle the boom and bust cycles that now dominate global economic activity. In a concise essay that combines practical insight with philosophical depth, Soros makes an invaluable contribution to our understanding of the great credit crisis and its implications for our nation and the world. Click here to see “The Crash of 2008 and What it Means” and help Independent Bookstores. Also available on Amazon.
Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.
As you might be aware, a new documentary is on the top ten most watched list on Netflix and is getting a lot of attention. The Social Dilemma is a well made documentary, directed by Jeff Orlowski, that aims to reveal the problems, very very big problems that have arisen, mainly in the past decade in the way social media and internet platforms generally, are operating and prospering.
While that may sound harmless at first blush, it’s the sheer scale; trillions of dollars, and the lack of any product or service, other than to advertisers, that begs the question: at what expense to humanity?
This is a big, important subject and is one that is extremely difficult to cram into an “entertaining” documentary. Here, an attempt is made to tackle that difficulty in two main ways.
First there are many on-camera interviews with almost exclusively former and current Silicon Valley insiders, many of whom where partially responsible for the very systems and methods that are being called into question here, and second, the two inter-twined semi-fictional dramatic elements, clearly meant to help viewers that may lose interest in discussions of algorithms, machine learning and corrupt business models.
Choosing insiders is not an oversight but by design
The choice of such a long list of high level tech insiders as interviewees is important and meaningful. The very fact that people, most of whom profited and made careers out of building these systems and platforms, are willing, now, to passionately speak out about them, and agree that they are horrific mistakes that have the potential to destroy not just people’s lives but humanity and the planet itself, speaks volumes.
While there are many other scholars, journalists and witnesses that could, and should, have their ideas and opinions heard, it is the extreme fact that insiders are willing to address these problems so candidly and so passionately, that helps this to be a mind-blowing and impossible to ignore documentary film.
Companies like Google and Facebook are some of the wealthiest and most successful of all time. They have relatively few employees. They just have this giant computer that rakes in money, right? Now, what are they being paid for? That’s a really important question.
-Jaron Lanier, founding father of virtual reality, computer scientist
The film must be seen, and the information absorbed, to understand the true importance, but, in a nut-shell, what is becoming more obvious by the minute is that the combination of massive power based on worldwide near-monopoly status, and a business model that has no contribution to make or product to sell, has allowed these platforms to amass trillion dollar fortunes in a lethal mix that must be stopped at all costs.
”The first fifty years of Silicon Valley the industry made products, hardware, software, sold them to customers, nice, simple business. For the last ten years the biggest companies in Silicon Valley have been in the business of selling their users”.
-Roger McNamee, Early Facebook investor and Venture Capitalist
Critics fail to see the film’s urgency and instead nitpick it as an imperfect entertainment product
There are layers of irony in the fact that the weaknesses decried by many critical articles written about this film are the same ones that the film is pointing to, and a major force, one that propelled these online platforms to positions of virtually unlimited power in the first place: human weaknesses and short attention spans.
”The classic saying is: “if you’re not paying for the product, then, you are the product”
-Classic Silicon Valley truism
The interviews are powerful and the quotes and alternately chilling and illuminating. So much so that it is actually difficult to absorb all at once. Many reviewers chose to simplify this reality by boiling the many serious quotes down to “dystopian” cliché, as if the end of the world is a topic for a cartoon movie review. Others harped on the weakness of the acted-out semi-fictional stories as not being the optimum way to get the real data and facts across.
The two narrative threads portrayed by actors revolve around an imaginary semi-suburban mixed family and their interactions with technology platforms and social media and a fictional visualization of the “back end” of the software systems used by the giant platforms (Facebook, Google, etc).
This back end software is elevated to a “triple-android” character, portrayed by Vincent Kartheiser, of Madmen fame, as sort of automaton-triplets that embody the actions of the software, AI and the integrated instructions, presumably from Zuckerberg himself (or the equivalent at Google or other platforms. (character name is, revealingly, “AI”)
This is a new kind of marketplace now. It’s a marketplace that never existed before. And it’s a marketplace that trades exclusively in “human futures”. Just like there are markets that trade in pork belly futures or oil futures. We now have markets that trade in human futures at scale. And those markets have produced the trillions of dollars that have made the internet companies the richest companies in the history of humanity”
-Shoshanna Zuboff PhD., Harvard Business School Professor, emeritus and author of “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism”
While these filmic-devices are not ideal or particularly precise in showing the problems with the entire complex system, they are, nevertheless, a good choice to find a way for the statements of the interviewees to be dramatized. They can help people who are not technical analysts to viscerally grasp the deep and serious problems being discussed. Without these elements the film’s audience would be, almost certainly, far smaller. This fact was not appreciated by many reviewers, however.
”Many people call this ‘surveillance capitalism’. Capitalism profiting off of the infinite tracking of everywhere everyone goes, by large technology companies whose business model is to make sure that advertisers are as successful as possible”
-Tristan Harris, Google’s former design ethicist and co-founder of The Center for Humane Technology
One reviewer even mistook the fictional anthropomorphic portrayal of software algorithms and artificial intelligence, all three by the same actor, as a real “unnamed” social platform and that these characters were supposed to be employees of the “unnamed” platform!
All of this confusion is directly related and lies at the heart of the eponymous dilemma being addressed. If the interview subjects, many of whom have become extremely rich from their contributions, are terrified of the evil power of these systems and platforms, what can be done to stop them from getting even bigger and more powerful and eventually destroying us all?
What chance of understanding and solving the problem to the rest of us have?
”How much of your life can we get you to give to us? We often talked about, at Facebook, this idea, of being able to just “dial that” as needed. And we talked about, you know, Mark (Zuckerberg) have those dials… “let’s dial up the ads a little bit”, dial up the monetization, just slightly… At all these companies there’s that level of precision”
-Tim Kendall, Facebook / former director of monetization, Pinterest / former president, CEO / Moment
Such a question sounds almost like a joke to anyone who has not followed and investigated the rise of these behemoths and the “legal” and yet criminal behaviors they perpetrate on a global scale, amplified by computing and financial powers that would have been unimaginable even 2 decades ago.
Therein lies the rub.
The beginning of the end of malignant big tech structures or of us?
The only criticism that stands out to this reviewer is that the message of doom was portrayed as an open question with not much in the way of suggestions for solution, or ways forward other than “delete your social media accounts”.
”there are times when there is a national interest, there are times when the interests of people, of users, is actually more important than the profits of somebody who is already a billionaire”
-Roger McNamee, Early Facebook investor and Venture Capitalist
While that, in and of itself, is a start, the reality is that governments around the world, particularly in Europe and Australia have convicted the giants of criminal behavior on multiple occasions and there are many pending anti-trust actions, not to mention grass roots support for radical change to laws and regulations as a response to the truly destructive nature of these platforms.
“These markets undermine democracy and they undermine freedom and they should be outlawed. This is not a radical proposal. There are other markets that we outlaw. We outlaw markets in human organs. We outlaw markets in human slaves. Because they have inevitable destructive consequences.”
-Shoshanna Zuboff PhD., Harvard Business School Professor, emeritus and author of “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism”
In an odd way the truth of even the most hyperbolic statements is what makes it so hard to keep people engaged. If these platforms and, in particular the dangerous and destructive business models that they are allowed to operate under, are not replaced or at least broken up, this could represent an even larger threat to humanity than climate change or nuclear war, so where do we start to dismantle them?
”We could tax data collection and processing. The same way that you, for example, pay your water bill, by monitoring the amount of water that you use. You tax these companies on the data assets that they have. It gives them a fiscal reason to not acquire every piece of data on the planet.”
-Joe Toscano, Google / Former experience design consultant and author of “Automating Humanity”
This is where interviewing and asking some very distinguished people who were, in part, responsible for building these systems, falls apart. Why should they be expected to have a solution for a problem that they, admittedly, were a part of creating?
”What I see are a bunch of people who are trapped, by a business model, and economic incentive and shareholder pressure that makes it almost impossible to do something else.
-Tristan Harris, Google’s former design ethicist and co-founder of The Center for Humane Technology
The answer is, of course, that they should not be expected to be the ones with the solutions – though their support of finding solutions and tackling the problems is very valuable, indeed. This is why this film deserves not criticism as an imperfect entertainment vehicle, but rather support and recommendation, as an important beginning in recognizing the threat posed by these business models; to mental health, economic prosperity and political stability of all nations.
”Whether it is to be utopia or oblivion will be a touch-and-go relay race right up to the final moment…”
