NYMag Article details this deceptive talking point endlessly repeated by the Right
It’s hard to trace the origin of the partially accurate, yet highly misleading, stat that has been so often used to refute the idea that the current tax burden in the U.S. is not falling enough on the richest 1% compared to the rest of society.
The stat, which under the very narrow definition of “taxes” as federal income tax, calculated separately from any other form of tax, is, in this narrow sense, basically true. This isolated and totally meaningless fact does not address the overall taxes paid by the “top 1%” (which itself is an arbitrary category).
The reality, when overall taxes paid are taken into account, as the NT Mag article points out, is actually much less dramatic and has completely different implications for any call to “tax the rich” which was made by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Dress, as an example.
First, the top 1% represent 21% of all income, which means, by the narrow definition of declared income for tax purposes, that they “earn” more than 20% of the total income declared.
Further, this does not include the loopholes that allow billionaires to have virtually no declarable income and still avoid capital gains taxes via Roth IRAs and other methods, even as the calculated net worth of theses individuals increases by billions.
Opinion: ultimately, rather than defending the current system as if it is already adequate and somehow fair, the facts show that, on so many levels it’s hard to delineate them all, the system is functioning in a way that is not only unfair, but so corrupt that change would need to be nearly total before it could even be accurate to say that it was functioning fairly for the majority.
According to the article, the actual stat, with the above dodges, that are universally used, still not taken into account, is that: “the richest one percent earn about 21 percent of the income and pay 24 percent of the taxes”.
Which is a far cry from the ubiquitous sound byte that “1% pays 40% of taxes”.
“It’s important to address the fact that billionaire heirs may never pay tax on billions in stock gains.”
Sen. Ron Wyden, chair of the Senate Finance Committee, warned Tuesday that House Democrats’ newly released tax plan would let U.S. billionaires off the hook by omitting key reforms that progressive lawmakers, advocacy organizations, and President Joe Biden have embraced.
“It would be a monumental mistake for Congress to pass a bill that really exempts billionaires,” Wyden (D-Ore.) told the New York Times in response to the House Ways and Means Committee’s proposal, which was spearheaded by Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.).
While the House plan (pdf) would hike taxes on large corporations and the top 1% of earners in the U.S., analysts and Democratic lawmakers have voiced concerns that it doesn’t go nearly as far as it should to raise revenue for policy priorities and tackle the nation’s runaway income inequality, which the coronavirus crisis has made even worse. According to one recent analysis, the collective wealth of U.S. billionaires has risen by $1.8 trillion—62%—during the pandemic.
Wyden’s committee is in the process of crafting a tax plan of its own as Democrats race to compile their sprawling budget reconciliation package, which is expected to include major investments in green energy, healthcare, housing, and other key areas.
Specifically, Wyden and progressive organizations criticized the House Ways and Means Committee for failing to tackle a loophole that allows the ultra-wealthy to pass on massive fortunes to their heirs tax-free. Earlier this year, Biden released a tax plan that would close the loophole.
“It’s important to address the fact that billionaire heirs may never pay tax on billions in stock gains,” Wyden toldHuffPost on Monday. “The nurses, firefighters, and teachers who pay their taxes with every paycheck know the system is broken when billionaire heirs never pay tax on billions in stock gains.”
Steve Wamhoff, director of federal tax policy at the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), echoed Wyden’s concern, noting in an interview with the Washington Post that “if the Ways and Means plan was enacted as is, Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk would still pay an effective rate of $0 on most of their income if they pass their assets on to their heirs.”
“It’s obviously a big improvement over the tax code we have now,” Wamhoff said of the House plan, “but there are a lot of things Biden suggested that would go a lot further.”
I agree with Chairman @RonWyden: we need to pass a bill that ensures that billionaires and corporations are finally paying their fair share. A wealth tax and my Real Corporate Profits Tax are two ways to get that done. https://t.co/xTtTQ8PGx2
On Tuesday, the progressive advocacy group Patriotic Millionaires made the House plan’s shortcomings the focus of a new mobile billboard campaign that features an image of Bezos—the richest man in the world—accompanied by the caption, “Oops! Missed me! (Thanks, Richie Neal!)”
“Richard Neal and the House Ways and Means Committee failed the president, failed the country, and failed history. It’s that simple,” Morris Pearl, chair of the Patriotic Millionaires, said in a statement. “This is not what the American people voted for when they elected Joe Biden as president.”
To remedy the proposal, the Patriotic Millionaires urged the House Democratic leadership to make several changes, including:
End the preferential tax rate for capital gains income over $1 million as President Biden requested. There is no intellectual or economic justification for working people in America to pay a higher tax rate than investors.
Eliminate the “stepped up basis” that allows the heirs of billionaires to avoid capital gains taxes on inherited assets (provide a reasonable exemption for family farms and small businesses). The committee’s failure to address this problem at all is particularly troubling.
End the Carried Interest Loophole which allows fund managers to mischaracterize their “ordinary” income as capital gain income for tax purposes. The Ways and Means proposal extends the hold time for investments to five years. Given that most private equity firms hold investments for six years, this change will have essentially zero effect. The loophole should be eliminated entirely.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), whose “Tax the Rich” dress at the lavish 2021 Met Gala made waves on social media, said Tuesday that “members of both parties have tried to halt taxing the wealthiest in our society” even after billionaires made enormous wealth gains during the pandemic.
“It’s unacceptable,” the New York Democrat added. “We must tax the rich.”
According to a June survey released by Americans for Tax Fairness, 72% of U.S. voters support closing “loopholes that let the wealthy avoid paying taxes on the profits from assets they transfer to heirs.” The poll also found that 62% of voters support raising the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28%.
The House Ways and Means Committee proposal would only raise the corporate rate to 26.5%.
As Chuck Collins and Sarah Anderson of the Institute for Policy Studies argued in a blog post on Monday, “The public has a tremendous appetite to do much more to address the grotesque concentrations of democracy-distorting wealth and power—and to shut down the ways that billionaires and a few hundred global corporations manipulate our tax system.”
“House Democratic tax writers do not go far enough to raise revenue or reduce extreme wealth inequality,” Collins and Anderson wrote. “The tax reforms would generate an estimated $2.2 trillion—just barely more than the revenue lost due to the 2017 Republican tax cuts.”
Experts say the privacy promise—ubiquitous in online services and apps—obscures the truth about how companies use personal data
You’ve likely run into this claim from tech giants before: “We do not sell your personal data.”
Companies from Facebook to Google to Twitter repeat versions of this statement in their privacy policies, public statements, and congressional testimony. And when taken very literally, the promise is true: Despite gathering masses of personal data on their users and converting that data into billions of dollars in profits, these tech giants do not directly sell their users’ information the same way data brokers directly sell data in bulk to advertisers.
But the disclaimers are also a distraction from all the other ways tech giants use personal data for profit and, in the process, put users’ privacy at risk, experts say.
Lawmakers, watchdog organizations, and privacy advocates have all pointed out ways that advertisers can still pay for access to data from companies like Facebook, Google, and Twitter without directly purchasing it. (Facebook spokesperson Emil Vazquez declined to comment and Twitter spokesperson Laura Pacas referred us to Twitter’s privacy policy. Google did not respond to requests for comment.)
And focusing on the term “sell” is essentially a sleight of hand by tech giants, said Ari Ezra Waldman, a professor of law and computer science at Northeastern University.
“[Their] saying that they don’t sell data to third parties is like a yogurt company saying they’re gluten-free. Yogurt is naturally gluten-free,” Waldman said. “It’s a misdirection from all the other ways that may be more subtle but still are deep and profound invasions of privacy.”
Those other ways include everything from data collected from real-time bidding streams (more on that later), to targeted ads directing traffic to websites that collect data, to companies using the data internally.
How Is My Data at Risk if It’s Not Being Sold?
Even though companies like Facebook and Google aren’t directly selling your data, they are using it for targeted advertising, which creates plenty of opportunities for advertisers to pay and get your personal information in return.
The simplest way is through an ad that links to a website with its own trackers embedded, which can gather information on visitors including their IP address and their device IDs.
Advertising companies are quick to point out that they sell ads, not data, but don’t disclose that clicking on these ads often results in a website collecting personal data. In other words, you can easily give away your information to companies that have paid to get an ad in front of you.
If the ad is targeted toward a certain demographic, then advertisers would also be able to infer personal information about visitors who came from that ad, Bennett Cyphers, a staff technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said.
For example, if there’s an ad targeted at expectant mothers on Facebook, the advertiser can infer that everyone who came from that link is someone Facebook believes is expecting a child. Once a person clicks on that link, the website could collect device IDs and an IP address, which can be used to identify a person. Personal information like “expecting parent” could become associated with that IP address.
“You can say, ‘Hey, Google, I want a list of people ages 18–35 who watched the Super Bowl last year.’ They won’t give you that list, but they will let you serve ads to all those people,” Cyphers said. “Some of those people will click on those ads, and you can pretty easily figure out who those people are. You can buy data, in a sense, that way.”
Then there’s the complicated but much more common way that advertisers can pay for data without it being considered a sale, through a process known as “real-time bidding.”
Often, when an ad appears on your screen, it wasn’t already there waiting for you to show up. Digital auctions are happening in milliseconds before the ads load, where websites are selling screen real estate to the highest bidder in an automated process.
Visiting a page kicks off a bidding process where hundreds of advertisers are simultaneously sent data like an IP address, a device ID, the visitor’s interests, demographics, and location. The advertisers use this data to determine how much they’d like to pay to show an ad to that visitor, but even if they don’t make the winning bid, they have already captured what may be a lot of personal information.
With Google ads, for instance, the Google Ad Exchange sends data associated with your Google account during this ad auction process, which can include information like your age, location, and interests.
The advertisers aren’t paying for that data, per se; they’re paying for the right to show an advertisement on a page you visited. But they still get the data as part of the bidding process, and some advertisers compile that information and sell it, privacy advocates said.
In May, a group of Google users filed a federal class action lawsuit against Google in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging the company is violating its claims to not sell personal information by operating its real-time bidding service.
The lawsuit argues that even though Google wasn’t directly handing over your personal data in exchange for money, its advertising services allowed hundreds of third parties to essentially pay and get access to information on millions of people. The case is ongoing.
“We never sell people’s personal information and we have strict policies specifically prohibiting personalized ads based on sensitive categories,” Google spokesperson José Castañeda told the San Francisco Chronicle in May.
Real-time bidding has also drawn scrutiny from lawmakers and watchdog organizations for its privacy implications.
In January, Simon McDougall, deputy commissioner of the United Kingdom’s Information Commissioner’s Office, announced in a statement that the agency was continuing its investigation of real-time bidding (RTB), which if not properly disclosed, may violate the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation.
“The complex system of RTB can use people’s sensitive personal data to serve adverts and requires people’s explicit consent, which is not happening right now,” McDougall said. “Sharing people’s data with potentially hundreds of companies, without properly assessing and addressing the risk of these counterparties, also raises questions around the security and retention of this data.”
And in April, a bipartisan group of U.S. senators sent a letter to ad tech companies involved in real-time bidding, including Google. Their main concern: foreign companies and governments potentially capturing massive amounts of personal data about Americans.
“Few Americans realize that some auction participants are siphoning off and storing ‘bidstream’ data to compile exhaustive dossiers about them,” the letter said. “In turn, these dossiers are being openly sold to anyone with a credit card, including to hedge funds, political campaigns, and even to governments.”
On May 4, Google responded to the letter, telling lawmakers that it doesn’t share personally identifiable information in bid requests and doesn’t share demographic information during the process.
“We never sell people’s personal information and all ad buyers using our systems are subject to stringent policies and standards, including restrictions on the use and retention of information they receive,” Mark Isakowitz, Google’s vice president of government affairs and public policy, said in the letter.
What Does It Mean to “Sell” Data?
Advocates have been trying to expand the definition of “sell” beyond a straightforward transaction.
The California Consumer Privacy Act, which went into effect in January 2020, attempted to cast a wide net when defining “sale,” beyond just exchanging data for money. The law considers it a sale if personal information is sold, rented, released, shared, transferred, or communicated (either orally or in writing) from one business to another for “monetary or other valuable consideration.”
And companies that sell such data are required to disclose that they’re doing so and allow consumers to opt out.
“We wrote the law trying to reflect how the data economy actually works, where most of the time, unless you’re a data broker, you’re not actually selling a person’s personal information,” said Mary Stone Ross, chief privacy officer at OSOM Products and a co-author of the law. “But you essentially are. If you are a social media company and you’re providing advertising and people pay you a lot of money, you are selling access to them.”
But that doesn’t mean it’s always obvious what sorts of personal data a company collects and sells.
In T-Mobile’s privacy policy, for instance, the company says it sells compiled data in bulk, which it calls “audience segments.” The policy states that audience segment data for sale doesn’t contain identifiers like your name and address but does include your mobile advertising ID.
Nevertheless, T-Mobile’s privacy policy says the company does “not sell information that directly identifies customers.”
T-Mobile spokesperson Taylor Prewitt didn’t provide an answer to why the company doesn’t consider advertising IDs to be personal information but said customers have the right to opt out of that data being sold.
So What Should I Be Looking for in a Privacy Policy?
The next time you look at a privacy policy, which few people ever really do, don’t just focus on whether or not the company says it sells your data. That’s not necessarily the best way to assess how your information is traveling and being used.
And even if a privacy policy says that it doesn’t share private information beyond company walls, the data collected can still be used for purposes you might feel uncomfortable with, like training internal algorithms and machine learning models. (See Facebook’s use of one billion pictures from Instagram, which it owns, to improve its image recognition capability.)
Consumers should look for deletion and retention policies instead, said Lindsey Barrett, a privacy expert and until recently a fellow at Georgetown Law. These are policies that spell out how long companies keep data, and how to get it removed.
She noted that these statements hold a lot more weight than companies promising not to sell your data.
“People don’t have any meaningful transparency into what companies are doing with their data, and too often, there are too few limits on what they can do with it,” Barrett said. “The whole ‘We don’t sell your data’ doesn’t say anything about what the company is doing behind closed doors.”
As reported from Reuters, in the 80 page new complaint, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) accuses Facebook of illegally monopolizing power. The refiled case includes additional evidence which is intended to support FTC’s case that Facebook dominates the U.S. personal social networking market.
In the headline of its press release, FTC alleges the company resorted to “illegal buy-or-bury- scheme to crush competition after string of failed attempts to innovate”.
“Despite causing significant customer dissatisfaction, Facebook has enjoyed enormous profits for an extended period of time suggesting both that it has monopoly power and that its personal social networking rivals are not able to overcome entry barriers and challenge its dominance,”
AMENDED complaint – federal trade COMMISSION
The FTC voted 3-2 to file the amended lawsuit. They also denied Facebook’s request that Lina Khan be recused, Khan participated in the filing of the new complaint.
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.
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
ProPublica drops a second monumental article based on treasure trove of IRS, SEC & court data
Excellent reporting of tax injustices among the obscenely rich continues with a huge and revelatory piece on Peter Thiel and his “little” Roth IRA scheme. Going well beyond the previous article that detailed how Bezos, Musk, Buffet and others all use loans secured with share holdings to avoid income, and thus avoid paying tax the “Lord of the Roths” is even more explosive.
While the emphasis of the article on Thiel’s Roth IRA takes on the task of trying to somehow compare an “average” investor’s potential gains with the unimaginable magnitude of Thiel’s windfall, this is something that makes sense as a valid perspective, but the obscenity is nearly lost in the opaque fog of numbers beyond comprehension.
For example: your Peter is basically gifted 1.7 million shares by the company he was one of the founders of (along with Elon Musk and the rest of the so called “PayPal Mafia). That “purchase” costing less than $2000 based on the ridiculous price of $0.001 per share was used to found a Roth IRA.
The engineered numbers were no accident: at the time, in 1999, a Roth IRA account had a maximum allowable contribution amount of $2,000. Since the shares were “below fair value”, the fact of which was admitted by PayPal in an SEC filing from the time just before the company went public, the value increased massively, by 227,490% in the first year. Which increased the value of the paltry $2k up to $3.8 million.
Though obviously not enforced, regulations at the time forbade this kind of “stuffing”. Meaning, the initial trade that launched this scheme was possibly illegitimate, if not unlawful. Or, as ProPublica more kindly phrased it: “Investors aren’t allowed to buy assets for less than their true value through an IRA. “
As a matter of fact, according to the article, the “stuffing” was so successful that no further contributions were ever made into the account after that initial 1999 sum.
Since a Roth IRA allows a person to trade stocks within the account tax free, as long as no withdrawals are made, this large but still comprehensible sum was the start of a 20 year use of the tax statutes to build a fortune of over $5 billion without paying a single penny in tax.
Hitting $870 million in value by 2008, by 2019 the tax free enterprise, built on the less than $2000 initial contribution (stock “purchase”), ultimately ballooned to 96 sub-accounts with holdings of $5 billion.
Ok, so that’s the short summary of the mind blowing numbers. For a more detailed account, by all means visit the original article.
The numbers are outrageous, but the entitlement and arrogance is on a whole other level
The part of the story that should spark outrage is not in the numbers but begins where the almost inhuman greed, hubris and hypocrisy at this good fortune grows apace with the size of the tax free bonanza. Because Peter Tiel is not just any run-of-the-mill untaxed billionaire.
The endlessly expanding windfall he received, tax free, did not engender a mindset of charity or gratefulness at his miraculous providence.
Above: Photo Collage / Lynxotic
Instead Thiel, once the wealth lent him a position of power, preached and pushed the idea that the US government, the same one that he was able to avoid paying taxes to, was guilty of over-taxing people like him (and poor people too).
He spent millions of dollars in an effort to influence Republican politicians and groups that have anti-tax agendas, to change the laws in ways that would add even more advantages to his already preposterously privileged position. Then this: as per ProPublica: “In 2016, he became the rare Silicon Valley titan to endorse Donald Trump.”
And, in an arrogance that is as incomprehensible as the size his effortlessly expanding fortune, he espouses the belief that people like him are entitled to these kind of spoils because, after all, without him we might have to live without PayPal and….wait for it…. Facebook.
Yes, you heard that right. In 2004, Thiel used his IRA to buy $500,000 worth of shares in a, then private, company called Facebook, which was the first big outside investment in Zuckerberg’s soon to be massive monstrosity.
By using his IRA funds to buy shares of the start-up he was able to avoid tax on all the future gains of those shares. (ProPublica, in excellent investigative reporting, uncovered this tidbit by combing though Facebook court documents).
So, again, ostensibly, based on his well known statements, we are not only to congratulate him on his clever method of avoiding any taxation whatsoever on the first gambit with the PayPal shares, but we ought to effusively thank him for helping Facebook to become the dangerous purveyor of surveillance and phantom tollbooth Ponzi empire that is it today?
In perhaps one of the greatest illustrations of how power corrupts, this idea that because he was able to amass a fortune on such a massive scale without the burden of any tax whatsoever, he is somehow a hero to be emulated, is the real reason for us to be outraged.
That an average person might be lucky to turn $2000 into $250,000 over two decades, as was illustrated in detail in the article, while Thiel easily turned it into $5 billion, is outrageous, yes.
But the real “crime” is that it was done with zero benefit to anyone except him and other Silicon Valley insiders at companies like PayPal and Facebook.
Could it be argued that Facebook is a gift to humanity? Well, in 2021 that would be a tough argument to put forth without being laughed out of the room. And PayPal? It’s doubtful that Satoshi Nakamoto has to fear competition from any of the PayPal Mafia (including Mr. Musk) when the crown for greatest financial innovator of the century is awarded.
In a revelation that could have received more page inches, the article also exposes a second, possibly more plausible reason, regarding why Thiel went to great lengths to bankrupt Gawker Media, which he blamed for outing him as Gay. That politically convenient motivation could very well have covered up the real reason:
Again, as per ProPublica:
“In a story headlined, “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Taxpayer Money,” Gawker Media, citing anonymous sources, revealed that Thiel held his Facebook investment in a tax-free Roth.”
Companies built on greed and hubris create nothing and, in the end, die
Thiel believes he will live to be 120 years old. Based on his comments and writings he appears to believe that the world would benefit from that eventuality.
But when looking at the companies he helped to build, and the obscene fortune he was rewarded with for binging them into being, it seems like most of us, after accessing his life’s works and “accomplishments”, would be more thankful for the improbability of that dream coming true.
2087? That will be the year that either Utopia or Oblivion will have arrived for humanity and the planet earth. If by a miracle an earthly Utopia comes to be, it is highly unlikely that PayPal, Facebook or Mr. Thiel will have had any hand in bringing it about.
Above: Jack Dorsey & Elon Musk – Photo – various / tesla / Twitter / collage Lyxotic
Possibly staged “Twitter feud over BitCoin” leads to portentous upcoming event: “THE talk”
Although both Jack Dorsey, head of both Twitter and Square, and Elon Musk are long standing and staunch BitCoin advocates, a lot of chatter around the internet has painted Musk as having gone soft on the crypto currency.
Th narrative that has been put forth pits his loyalty to Bitcoin as somehow incongruous with his support for DogeCoin, the somewhat less serious AltCoin variant he has openly championed.
Intermingled with this straw-man charade, is the also over-hyped idea that the energy used by BitCoin mining is a factor in global warming and therefore a stain on Musk’s otherwise high profile positive sustainable energy resumé.
While many article have shown this argument to be blown out of proportion at best, apparently the whole world (China, if you’re listening) has seized on this talking point as a way to damage BitCoin’s popularity and pedigree.
The attempt to use this argument to undermine BitCoin’s adoption progress and futuristic pedigree appears to have already backfired, however. For example, at the recent BitCoin conference in Miami, Jack Dorsey announced plans to invest in a sustainable energy powered BitCoin mining facility.
Elon Musk has also stated via his twitter account that Tesla would resume accepting BitCoin payments, as soon as more miners switch to renewable energy. This coming after he had announced, to great fanfare, that Tesla would accept the cryptocurrency and then, in May, reversed the decision after backlash from those who pounced on the issue to try to tarnish Tesla’s sterling reputation as a proponent of the transition to sustainable energy.
Though not yet confirmed 100%, the Twitter exchange between the two titans implied that the “talk” would take place in conjunction with the “The B Word” BitCoin conference, which kicks off on July 21, 2021. Sponsored by Ark Invest, Square and Paradigm, the big name speakers and hype already building, along with the timing, coming on the heels of a huge peak then “crash” in the crypto markets, looks to be a watershed event for Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general.
Details on whether the exchange between the two will be live on stage or via video conference have, as of yet, not been revealed.
Twitter and Square CEO Dorsey tweeted Thursday about an upcoming “The B Word” bitcoin event, and Musk responded to it. It’s unclear if the event, which kicks off on July 21, will be virtual or in-person.
The potential for drama as the two discuss a topic on which they, for the most part agree, is a smart way to hype the event, both the conference itself and the monumental meeting for “THE Talk”.
Regardless of any fireworks or revelations coming out of the event and the meeting between these two incredibly influential business leaders, the upshot is that all of the above is a net positive for BitCoins progress toward more widespread adoption and acceptance.
Critical mass may already been achieved for crypto in the US
The overly manic focus on price fluctuations notwithstanding, there is a rapidly growing sense that the #1 cryptocurrency as well as all related coins and activities are reaching the point, in the US, that it will be impossible to return the genie to the bottle.
Any attempt to block or outlaw, in totality, the emerging world of crypto-finance, is likely to fail. Realizing this there appears to be a faint whisper of capitulation on the part of both the government in the US and among the “old guard” establishment, namely Wall Street.
Dorsey’s take, as quoted from his appearance at the BitCoin conference in Miami:
“Governments are trying to block cryptocurrency use to avoid losing hold of power”
“It can’t, and it never will.” — musing on the likelihood of Wall Street controlling bitcoin.
“That’s why we don’t deal with any other currencies or coins — because we’re so focused on making bitcoin the native currency for the internet.” — when asked about payments provider Square’s ambitions for bitcoin.
Marking the beginning of a new era of Hollywood tech glamour
Somehow it is slightly disconcerting to see iconic and historic movie theaters repurposed or simply demolished. The former is preferred. However, this is not just any renovation, not just any commercial repurposing.
This is a bold and strategic statement that Apple is not just the future of computing but the future of entertainment, enabler of creativity and the beating heart of digital communication.
In renovating, really rescuing the location, Apple has, seemingly, taken the deeper meanings to heart and tried, with a budget befitting the world’s largest company, to do justice to the majestic, historic landmark, even as they transformed it into a temple to all things Apple.
The link to Hollywood’s glory days is not inappropriate or hard to grasp, and there’s a nod to the innovative and pioneering spirit of those early days of film, and an attempt to draw a lane directly to the potential for Apple’s products and services to enhance creativity, entertainment experiences, and, well, life.
There’s also statement lurking in the transition, potentially a permanent one, which sees in-person pleasures like viewing a film on the big screen in opulent surroundings begin to fade into the past and a move into sales and learning nodes for devices and methods we can use to build and inhabit the metaverse.
In the press release from today the sub-head reads: “Historic theater has premiered new technology since 1927” – in an, apparently, heartfelt attempt to build a link between the technology of today and the entertainment marvels showcased at the theater during a bygone era.
The connections to Hollywood are no longer metaphoric
With Apple in the middle of a long transition away from just devices and hardware and into a service and communications company, the importance and multi-layered meaning of this location is unavoidable.
Creativity and communication, and most of all a deep bond with the emerging “creator class” that Apple itself had a huge role in bringing into being, are at the heart of the message they are sending with this location, the lavish and loving renovation and in the press release itself.
Once literally an underdog, first to IBM and later to the “evil empire” of Microsoft’s Kock-offs, Apple is still, oddly, often underestimated and misunderstood, or at least not understood until changes permeate society.
Nothing says, nay screams, that we are approaching a golden age of Apple than the new Apple Tower Theatre complex. That golden age will occur when the world catches up with the potential of having a professional film production studio in your pocket and all the other technical innovations still to come.
The great singularity of the Apple ecosystem
There is a hugely important convergence coming in the galaxy of Apple products, software and services, that is not yet halfway implemented. The next couple of years are bound to see powerful, sometimes confusing, always remarkable advances in the company’s offerings and the way that we interact with them.
And now, with the Apple Tower Theatre in LA, there is also a mecca which can be the end destination for any pilgrimage of the faithful. Also, with Hollywood creative talents literally around the corner, what better location could there be as a reminder for the power brokers that AppleTV+ is here to stay and plans to engage at all levels and intends to seek options on any deal.
Today at Apple Creative Studios will reach out to budding creativity everywhere
Strongly associated with the theater’s launch is also a enlargement and
Today at Apple Creative Studios – the project is a global initiative for “underrepresented young creatives” and is an ongoing part of Today at Apple which is hosted at Apple Stores worldwide.
As per the Apple press release:
“In collaboration with the nonprofit Music Forward Foundation, as well as Inner-City Arts and the Social Justice Learning Institute, Creative Studios LA will provide access to technology, creative resources, and hands-on experience, along with a platform to elevate and amplify up-and-coming talents’ stories over nine weeks of free programming.”
Apple: The overhead dome, which originally depicted scenes full of clouds and cherubs, had been painted over in a previous restoration. It now brightens the space with an atmospheric sky.
“Today at Apple will also offer public in-store sessions at Tower Theatre and virtual sessions hosted by Creative Studios teaching artists and mentors, including photographer and filmmaker Bethany Mollenkof, rapper and producer D Smoke, singer-songwriter Syd, and cellist and singer Kelsey Lu. Noah Humes and his mentor, Maurice Harris, two artists who worked on the mural outside Tower Theatre inspired by the spirit of Creative Studios LA, will also teach a virtual session. Everyone is welcome to register at apple.com/creative-studios-la.”
“Originally home to the first theater in Los Angeles wired for film with sound, the historic Tower Theatre was designed in 1927 by renowned motion-picture theater architect S. Charles Lee. That legacy of technological innovation continues today as the perfect venue to discover Apple’s full line of iPhone, iPad, and Mac, each of which has transformed modern-day filmmaking, photography, and music composition.”
“Upon the closing of its doors in 1988, the space has lain empty and unused. With the same level of care found in previous restoration projects, Apple collaborated with leading preservationists, restoration artists, and the City of Los Angeles to thoughtfully preserve and restore the theater’s beauty and grandeur. Every surface was carefully refinished, and the building has undergone a full seismic upgrade.”
Apple Tower Theatre Opens Thursday at 10 a.m.
The store team will welcome its first customers Thursday, June 24, at 10 a.m. Apple Tower Theatre will be open from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. from Monday to Saturday, and 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Sunday, with team members ready to provide support and service to all visitors. For those wishing to order new products online, customers can get shopping help from Apple Specialists, choose monthly financing options, trade in eligible devices, receive Support services, and elect for no-contact delivery or Apple Store pickup.
Norton has announced integrated Ethereum mining software
Norton Antivirus software, and the company that makes it, NortonLifeLock , best known for being bundled annoyingly in new Windows computers, has announced via press release that they intend to bundle a feature they call “Norton™ Crypto”.
The feature which they say will be added to Norton360 starting tomorrow for “early adopters” to begin mining from within the already installed software.
They are also, with a very helpful tone, declaring that they will also bundle an ethereum wallet which will be safely stored in “the cloud” so it won’t be lost.
They do not specify any minimum computing requirements but they do say that :
“Norton Crypto is expected to become available to all Norton 360 customers1 in the coming weeks.”
Yo’ dude this shit’s getting real
So, although this comes off as a somewhat desperate attempt to try and maintain relevance after likely millions of forced installations are never monetized (just a guess) it nevertheless could send millions of civilians into crypto mining without “just a few clicks”.
This brings up so many questions immediately it’s a bit mind-boggling. Although the first media reactions, predictably, mention “environmental” issues and take a negative tone, doubting why anyone would want to risk “taxing” the computer’s GPU for such a task.
Of course questions such as how mining efficiency would be affected by millions of “micro-miners” there is also the question of why wouldn’t a virus software subscriber want to essential use their idle computer resources to pay for the software itself (cut to happy Norton execs congratulating themselves on the genius idea).
Above:Photo Credit / Norton
Could there be another story here? Mainstream experience with crypto, demystifying the blockchain?
Further and more interestingly. If more mainstream software companies and even service subscription software companies follow suit and millions if not hundreds of millions of average people begin collecting small months ethereum “dividends”, even if only $10 per month, how easy is it to put the Genie back into the bottle, so to speak?
When millions are not “irresponsibly” using dollars or euros to purchase cryptocurrencies, but rather, instead “earn” a few extra dollars, once the coins are traded for local “hard” (read: fiat) currencies, here and there for each computer or GPU they own, can the whole thing, like green stamps, air miles, credit card loyalty program be suddenly outlawed?
As appears everywhere more and more on a daily basis, isn’t crypto, via Bitcoin, Ethereum and many various alt coins, become more and more woven into the financial system? Isn’t the number of people who own, buy or even mine crypto exploding exponentially on a daily basis?
Isn’t this just one more sign that the trend of crypto becoming “normalized” and woven more and more deeply into the fabric of our lives is not likely to reverse itself?
Yes. That’s the answer. More news tomorrow, probably.
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.
Looking like a slowdown and shift to new sponsors for 2021
Super Bowl LV airs live on CBS and CBS All Access on Sunday, February 7th kicking off at 6:30 p.m. Before you see one of the biggest sporting events of the year when the Chiefs and Buccaneers (with Tom Brady) take the field, below are sneak peaks of some of the ads set to air during the big game.
With a few exceptions many of the usual sponsors are back. Tide, Pringles, Amazon, Cheetos, Doritos, Frito Lay, M & M’s and, of course, Bud Light. But a few notable newcomers include Square Space, Rockstar Energy and the ad that already has people cringing, Robinhood.
After the incredible backlash against the app restricting trading in GameStop, AMC, BlackBerry and others, for many the ad falls flat, crashes you might say. Probably a great test of the theory that any publicity is good publicity. They have seen a surge in signups. Go figure. Check the ad below and then take a look at the 16 we collected as a preview to the big day.
Apple gets serious about exploitative surveillance business models, and it’s about time
Six months ago when we first published “Cracks in The Wall: Apple, Google, Amazon and Facebook Silently Declare Wars Against Each Other” we were worried. Although we firmly believed it was a just war, and that the time was at hand for the rotten underbelly of the internet and, more than anything else, for the business model of Facebook to be excoriated out in the open, using the term “war” in conjunction with Apple seemed over-the-top and even inflammatory.
We stuck with the title and now, looking back, it was accurate if not 100% polite. After new privacy features in iOS 14 and macOS Big Sur were made public, Facebook and Zuckerberg took it as an attack on its tracking-first-business model and fought back with some rhetoric about how Apple was going to harm small businesses.
The first feeble attempt at fighting back was a full page ad in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other outlets, where Facebook alleged: “these changes will be devastating to small businesses” with the supposition that small businesses depend on Facebook’s darling invention; tracking-based advertising, and need it to build their brands and to sell products.
Missing from this self-serving logic is the price of this form of targeting and data collection – in dollars, literally billions of them charged to those same small businesses, and in the cost to virtually all “users” who’s privacy is sacrificed with little to no consumer benefit and many, many potential detriments.
This is not just some sort of scrap between rival companies, it’s all our futures at stake
With the salvo of clear and decisive comments made by Tim Cook at the Computers, Privacy and Data Protection conference, and in interviews with various magazines, the righteous and timely battle against demonstribly evil internet business models is for real now, with the unnamed but obviously targeted Facebook at the top of the list.
The quote from Tim Cook in the title above exactly captured the current reality: the excellent documentary titled ‘The Social Dilemma’ did not go nearly far enough in exposing the danger of surveillance based business models that should not be allowed to exist
As if Facebook has ever been a friend to small business. The concept that has been clear for many years is that the surveillance capitalism, for the most part invented by Facebook, that Apple is now declaring war against, was always an obscene and disastrous one for every person on the planet, other than Mark Zuckerberg.
“If a business is built on misleading users, on data exploitation, on choices that are no choices at all, it does not deserve our praise. It deserves reform,”
Apple CEO, Tim Cook, speaking at the Computers, Privacy and Data Protection conference
However, with a vast power over almost all digital advertising (sharing, with Google, more than 70%) and no competition to speak of where anyone could go for “social media” access, 3-5 years ago it was hard to imagine how anything could slowdown, let alone stop, Facebook’s inexorable rise.
In what will be a huge theme for this decade, only giants can fight and hope to win against other giants.
Right now, as of Tim Cook’s declaration of war on the “data-industrial complex” and with numerous anti-trust and other legal actions against Facebook pending, it suddenly seems plausible that a real change, a much needed change, could finally come in the way that human beings communicate via that immense network of devices we call the internet.
“Technology does not need vast troves of personal data, stitched together across dozens of websites and apps, in order to succeed.”
— Tim Cook
In an exclusive interview with Michael Grothaus at Fast Company Cook stated: “In terms of privacy—I think it is one of the top issues of the century, we’ve got climate change—that is huge. We’ve got privacy—that is huge. . . . And they should be weighted like that and we should put our deep thinking into that and to decide how can we make these things better and how do we leave something for the next generation that is a lot better than the current situation.” (emphasis mine)
This statement, though perhaps hyperbolic to some, is at the heart of our coverage of Apple, Google, Facebook and “Big Tech” in general over the last few years. In fact, this idea can go further and deeper as… “privacy” is just the tip of the iceberg and the predatory infrastructure that the data-collection and exploitation business model enables is even more dangerous and is a threat to the entire economy.
Of the new “Big 5” (Apple, Musk, Facebook, Google, Amazon) only Apple and the affiliated Elon Musk enterprises actually have proprietary products or products and services that benefit humanity in a concrete way.
Elon Musk has sustainable energy and sustainable transportation as stated goals of Tesla, while SpaceX, has reaching Mars (to give earthlings a second planet available in case we screw this one up) and, now with Starlink, building a second broadband internet backbone in space.
Apple, while on the one hand being inadvertently responsible for both Google and Facebook in different ways (more on that soon in a subsequent post), is at the heart of the real reason why internet business models and structures are key to our survival and to humanity’s ability to survive and reverse global warming by evolving, enhanced communication.
Apple is no longer just an electronic device maker. Software, hardware, A.I., possibly an electric car, and services are all merging and reaching what we call “Apple Singularity”. Apple has the potential to trigger a monumental shift in the ways we communicate online – networked human communication – away from the trash-filled nightmare of the present day – where three obscenely massive companies: Facebook, Google and Amazon, have built business models that do not rest on innovative products or services but on predatory systems that enslave users, gouge small businesses and do very little in adding benefit to humanity as a whole.
“At a moment of rampant disinformation and conspiracy theories juiced by algorithms, we can no longer turn a blind eye to a theory of technology that says all engagement is good engagement — the longer the better — and all with the goal of collecting as much data as possible. It is long past time to stop pretending that this approach doesn’t come with a cost — of polarization, of lost trust and, yes, of violence”
Tim Cook
What the three massive deadbeats do is make a small handful of individuals and shareholders very rich. Fortunately, the issues with these business models are finally being questioned. But this is only the beginning.
The unthinkable is now at least possible to imagine: a world where Facebook does not have unlimited power to take, and profit from, our data
Once a real understanding of the degree of inferiority of these models, when measured by the costs vs. the benefit to humanity itself, becomes clearer, the government regulation and involuntary changes forced by the market will begin and quickly accelerate.
It is the combination of the lack of substance or concrete contribution by firms with a predatory business model casing the harm, in ways that are partially invisible, up until now, and make them so dangerous.
The danger is social, political, and in then end affects our economy and the lives of nearly every person who uses the services of those companies. Which is very nearly the entire population.
The economic damage that is being caused by the business models invented by these companies is, much like global warning, so massive that it threatens the entire planet, but the lack of attention we are giving it is based on ignorance of the magnitude of the danger.
Apple and Tim Cook’s perspective is extremely important and key to lighting a spark to ignite fires that will burn away that ignorance. The “big-tech” world that Apple, led by Steve Jobs, had a huge hand in creating, desperately needs a shake up and it needs to start now. This has nothing to do with a handful of huge companies fighting over control of the internet – it’s not about one winning, it’s about further damage being stopped, and a new, better internet being allowed to emerge.
Now, Tim Cook and Apple are beginning a long battle to make that happen on behalf of all of us.
Want know more about shorting? About the shady and complicated scams? And also see an incredible film?
The Wolf of wall street is simply a great movie. It’s even better though if you watch it in the context of stock market mania. Just like the one that’s happening now.
Beyond the fact that the story is incredibly entertaining it does also get into the heart of the “pump & dump” boiler room mentality. While the so called ‘retail investors” who are riding the Robinhood stock purchasing app to what they see as well deserved revenge on Wall Street, and Belfort who was the real life “Wolf of Wall Street” was more of a wannabe that couldn’t get into the establishment. He then set forth, with chutzpa and insanity and some drugs, built his own criminal empire, there are some very clear correlations between his tricks that made him rich and what the short-squeezing Reddit & Wall Street Bets chat room vigilantes are doing right now.
Can we all be like the guys, Jordan Belfort or Michael Burry, who was played by Christian Bale in the movie, and even though it was about going short, it’s sill ok, cause, Christian Bale?
History does exist, even if it happened before your uncle was born
Up until 1934 many things were legal and rampant that today, technically, are not allowed. Insider Trading is the most obvious and best defined, look up Martha Stewart and jail time if you want to know more about that.
Collusion in the market is another less well known practice, also known as “pump & dump” that has as many variations as Ponzi schemes and, though illegal, will never be stamped out. The technical terms for Colluding in relation to stock trading are “securities fraud” or “market manipulation.”
Not to get technical but here’s an partial excerpt of the legal specifics:
15 U.S. Code § 78i – Manipulation of security prices
(a) – (2 To effect, alone or with 1 or more other persons, a series of transactions in any security registered on a national securities exchange, any security not so registered, or in connection with any security-based swap or security-based swap agreement with respect to such security creating actual or apparent active trading in such security, or raising or depressing the price of such security, for the purpose of inducing the purchase or sale of such security by others.
Lots of confusion on all sides. There’s an internet storm brewing over the “injustice” of various entities – a ridiculous “free” trading app called, of all things “Robinhood”, the hedge funds who shorted an obviously overvalued stock. The army of short-squeezers who are screaming bloody murder that they were not able to cash in at the top (or commit Hari-kari by buying more the higher it goes).
And then every pundit in the world sounding off – all the outrage and chaos with Ted Cruz & AOC & Elon Musk & Chris Cuomo & Mark Cuban and probably every celebrity in the world going nuts all at once by tomorrow and all sounding off like crazy over the “injustice”. Shake it up and shake in down.
The sheer volume of confusion over the “Robinhood Revolution” is staggering. Just wait it will be much, much worse. The depth of the ignorance is truly monumental.
Interactive Brokers has put AMC, BB, EXPR, GME, and KOSS option trading into liquidation only due to the extraordinary volatility in the markets. In addition, long stock positions will require 100% margin and short stock positions will require 300% margin until further notice.
Are there bad guys on “Wall Street”? Plenty. Are the google guys day traders that bid up a worthless stock to “burn” hedge funds and get rich quick heroes? Please.
And an App hilariously named “Robinhood” that charge phantom fees rather than stated charges (low, high or whatever) does no “stealing from the rich” and sure as hell no “giving to the poor”.
They told me that the we live in free market capitalist society
They told me:
– Markets are free – Healthy competition is promoted – The same rules apply to everyone – Deck is not stacked against the little guy
Traders and “Wall Street Insiders” know that danger is real. The idea of protecting “retail traders” from risk? As they tap into credit cards to buy worthless stocks that they believe they have a right to pump & dump?
I'm sorry, but if you're gonna freak out when your users start robbing the rich, you can't call yourself "Robin Hood." pic.twitter.com/WwPkO6qdDt
And are they good guys cause they should be able to push the price of a stock endlessly higher for no reason whatsoever except that they get off on the letters from the ticker symbols that happen to sound similar to the ticker for a stock that Elon Musk did a two word tweet about (Signal, etc)?
I accidentally bought 13000 shares of #dogecoin while I was at the gym cause Robinhood froze on me so I didn’t think the order went through. Doubled my money in an hour. First good thing Robinhood ever did for me.
Collusion and getting rich for doing basically nothing should be something that is available to everyone because criminals have gotten away with it left right and center?
Probably best not to name your company or organization or non-profit some form of Robin Hood
Short sellers and now Robinhood are getting critics of all stripes
Tesla CEO Elon Musk wrote in a series of tweets Thursday a litany of anti-short thoughts, punctuated with “get shorty”. Also said he “absolutely” agrees with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-NY., that the House Financial Services Committee should launch an investigation into Robinhood because of stock trade restrictions that were put into place by the online app-based brokerage related to GameStop.
Always a master of viral expression, Musk famously marketed “short-shorts” as a dig at short sellers that he felt were unfairly targeting volatile Tesla stock moves. In the end, at least so far, he has always had the last laugh.
u can’t sell houses u don’t own u can’t sell cars u don’t own but u *can* sell stock u don’t own!? this is bs – shorting is a scam legal only for vestigial reasons
Robinhood is blocking “investors” from initiating new positions in GameStop, AMC Entertainment Holdings, American Airlines, BlackBerry Ltd., Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., Express Inc., Koss Corp., Naked Brand Group, Nokia Corp, Trivago, and Tootsie Roll Industries, Inc. They are only permitting them to sell existing holdings. Margin requirements were also increased for various securities.
The actions likely have a two-fold justification, based on the situation. To protect Robinhood from litigation in the even, which is likely, that the stock will collapse and many novice “investors” will get hurt, and ostensibly, to protect the investors themselves.
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez stated: “We now need to know more about @RobinhoodApp’s decision to block retail investors from purchasing stock while hedge funds are freely able to trade the stock as they see fit.” And then added: As a member of the Financial Services Cmte, I’d support a hearing if necessary.
Here come the shorty apologists Give them no respect Get Shorty
The story that won’t stop and the very fine people on all sides
No heroes, plenty of villains and lots and lots of nonsense and stupidity. But before getting into the nuts and bolts of this tragic “new” phenomena, take a second and think about all those media stories, in nearly every online media outlet, even hitting local news.
Each “take” on the story has a different slant and spin and almost none go into the boring and complex technical details of stock trading schemes. Most, it appears, are cheering on, implicitly, the “main street” buyers in an imaginary “war” on Wall Street.
[Disclaimer: Nothing in this article should be construed as legal or financial advice.]
That will get you more clicks.
A few will point out that GameStop, the company that is, which has no real prospect to rise from its comatose state into a Tesla-like world beater, regardless of how high the stock climbs for a few weeks or so.
And they will, rightly, warn that in this game, the “innocent” main street “investor” will lose in the end. Those are the boring stories. Not as many clicks for them.
The longer more accurate story of what is going on touches on the Great Depression, the Dot-com bubble, the financial crisis of 2008 and an understanding of stock trading that goes beyond the patience threshold of the general public and the media, even beyond most so-called Wall Street Insiders.
History does exist, even if it happened before your uncle was born
Up until 1934 many things were legal and rampant that today, technically, are not allowed. Insider Trading is the most obvious and best defined, look up Martha Stewart and jail time if you want to know more about that.
Collusion in the market is another less well known practice, also known as “pump & dump” that has as many variations as Ponzi schemes and, though illegal, will never be stamped out. The technical terms for Colluding in relation to stock trading are “securities fraud” or “market manipulation.”
Not to get technical but here’s an partial excerpt of the legal specifics:
15 U.S. Code § 78i – Manipulation of security prices
(a) – (2 To effect, alone or with 1 or more other persons, a series of transactions in any security registered on a national securities exchange, any security not so registered, or in connection with any security-based swap or security-based swap agreement with respect to such security creating actual or apparent active trading in such security, or raising or depressing the price of such security, for the purpose of inducing the purchase or sale of such security by others.
Enter Reddit’s r/wallstreetbets forum. Not saying that there is anything illegal about “loving” a company as a group and choosing to “support” it by buying its shares.
Even if the motivation (false and imagined) is to “hurt” the short sellers in some kind of Robin Hood attack, that’s probably not something the SEC would care about. Short selling professionals can take care of themselves.
Enter another part of history: the allegedly overvalued company effect
Attacking short sellers has become a kind of sport, particularly when it’s about an emotional connection that was partly responsible for a company’s shares being “overvalued” by traditional metrics in the first place. Once “overvalued” therefore, a target to be sold short by traders and hedge funds that believe in quaint things like profit to earnings ratios and the like.
While company’s share prices being “overvalued” is based on opinion and often wrong, there have been recent cases, since the NASDAQ bubble burst in 2000, that have added a somewhat new, larger, twist on the typical understanding of these types of situations.
Bubble is as bubble does
To take the biggest example, there is Amazon (AMZN) which would take a thousand page book to accurately and fully elaborate on, but for the sake of brevity a couple of points could be made.
It is well known that Amazon posted substantial losses for many years while the stock price generally continued to rise. This was attributed to shareholders’ willingness to forgo proof of financial success within the company and persisted in buying & holding in the hope that share prices would continue to rise and that the company eventually would show profits and more success.
All of that seemed to happen, in the case of Amazon, when viewed casually, and now there is a sense, among some, that overvaluation, in “outlier” cases, is no longer a valid reason to sell (or short) a stock. Everybody’s happy right?
The uses of inflated value is a sticky-wicket if you are the loser
Not everybody. Naturally there are many “bad” short sellers who likely lost by shorting Amazon during it’s unrelenting rise since 2000. They are unlikely happy.
But also, and here’s the rub, there were whole industries crushed by the power that came with that “over-valued” stock price that seems, from looking at reams of data, to have been used to finance the selling of goods at substantial losses for “as long as it takes” to damage competitors.
Ultimately, for Amazon, creating a possibly dangerous monopoly (or monopsony, as it were) position with the potential for further damage to not just competition, and the overall marketplace, but to society as a whole.
Tesla is a whole other story, but a completely unique one
However, the situation is clearly not black and white. An alternate opinion could be held regarding the similar, yet very different, situation at Tesla (TSLA). Short interest throughout the rise? Absolutely. Overvaluation by traditional metrics, yup.
But in this case there is both a technological argument to be made, as well as a geopolitical / moral one, that the company’s wider mission: “Tesla’s mission is to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy” is a more than validjustification for wanting to support the company, in any way possible, including through the purchase of it’s purportedly overvalued shares.
That kind of goodwill is the x-factor that is now being twisted into a justification for pumping GameStop (GME) into the stratosphere, beyond the kind of overvaluations that either Amazon or Tesla ever enjoyed (and that’s saying a lot!) while downplaying the “dump” part of the “pump & dump” scenario.
Of course here’s the tragic part; the dump phase always comes, and in reality, is the whole point. Next… ooopsy, while writing this the dump started with GME in the form of a drop from around $500 per share to $226.
For a sub-$20 stock, of course, that’s still extremely high and there will no doubt be gyrations in both directions before the final drop back to obscurity.
Twas ever thus, but still not nice
But the tragedy is in the idea, bandied about in the media and amplified in social media infinitely, that there are “Robin Hood” actors in this game (not the company but the dude in the forest in the movie).
In the end there may be a few that knew all along that “dump” was an integral and necessary part of pump & dump and I am sure there will be plenty of celebration of their “genius” exploits.
But the focus from any of us in the media should be at the tragedy of those that got lost in the hype and stupidity and chose to offer themselves up to the gods of GameStop, the market and Reddit’s r/wallstreetbets as cannon fodder:
”I was in my early teens during the ’08 crisis. I vividly remember the enormous repercussions that the reckless actions by those on Wall Street had in my personal life, and the lives of those close to me. I was fortunate – my parents were prudent and a little paranoid, and they had some food storage saved up. When that crisis hit our family, we were able to keep our little house, but we lived off of pancake mix, and powdered milk, and beans and rice for a year. Ever since then, my parents have kept a food storage, and they keep it updated and fresh.”
”I bought shares a few days ago. I dumped my savings into GME, paid my rent for this month with my credit card, and dumped my rent money into more GME (which for the people here at WSB, I would not recommend). And I’m holding. This is personal for me, and millions of others.”
”You can drop the price of GME after hours $120, I’m not going anywhere. You can pay for thousands of reddit bots, I’m holding. You can get every mainstream media outlet to demonize us, I don’t care. I’m making this as painful as I can for you”.
Promising content continues to go live each week in 2021
Netflix announced earlier this year, they will be rolling out some major content each week and will premier a brand new movie every week of 2021. With the upcoming price hike for another $1 for the standard account and $2 for the premium subscription, it seems like the streaming platform is giving viewers a bang for their buck..
New movie releases will have all the various genres covered! (action, sequels, dramas, musicals and more). Below are the movie releases for January, 29, 2021.
This British, period piece, based on real life events, casts Ralph Fiennes, Carey Mulligan and Lily James. The movies tells the story: on the eve of World World II, a British widow hires a self-taught archaeologist and embarks on the historically important excavation of Sutton Hoo in 1938. Digging up a mysterious formation on her land, leads to a staggering find.
Below Zero / January 29
A Spanish gritty action thriller movie (Bajocero) that has English voice-over features is set when a prisoner transfer van is attacked. The cop, Martin, who is in charge must fight those inside and outside while dealing with a silent foe: surviving the icy temperatures.
First a middle-finger toward tradition by skipping the Inauguration, then reactions to the entire debacle begin
So much to unpack – like an abused child we all stand in seeming disbelief as the maniac-in-chief finally recedes from view. Thanks to twitter for giving us a well deserved foretaste of a Trump-less future by deleting his account a week-plus ago.
In typical fashion Trump took a government jet to Mar-a-lago while making sure that Biden did not receive the customary loan of any government jet and had to fly private. Many will take solace in the uncertain and unlikely to be pleasant future for the accused insurrectionist, and still many more have celebrated, how else, with twitter memes specially designed for the occaision. Below we’ve gathered a few:
The systemic issues that led to a Trump presidency will not simply disappear once he's out of office. In fact Trump himself, the media's obsession with him, and the hold he has over his cultish supporters won't even disappear once he's out of office. That said, pic.twitter.com/yekw9mWe9E
Bezos knocked from #1 slot that he has held since 2017
According to Bloomberg, Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and SpaceX just passed up Jeff Bezos as the world’s richest person. While this, in and of itself is a fact that many will likely fetishize, the real story here is why and how.
There could not, IMHO, be two people more diametrically opposed in terms of motivation, inspiration and method. Both obscenely rich now? Of course. In each case because of stock holdings in companies they founded? Right again.
After that it is all a study in contrasts and contradictions. For example, as recently as Christmas eve 20o8 Elon Musk was nearly bankrupt and was on the verge of losing both SpaceX and Tesla. Later as recently as 2019, Tesla was in a deep financial hole.
Was this a case of bad management? Apparently not. What it was related to was the prime difference between Bezos and Musk. Musk has always only had one mission. Was it having the world’s most dominant eCommerce company? (or any other kind). One that would destroy entire business categories and be called the “grim reaper” due to it’s destruction of markets and competitors?
No – Musk has always wanted to save the world from itself. Tesla’s stated official mission is:
Tesla’s mission is to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy. … Teslabelieves the faster the world stops relying on fossil fuels and moves towards a zero-emission future, the better.
Tesla / Elon Musk
Perhaps the cynical would say this is just some kind of veil hiding a capitalist and monopolist hunger a la Bezos. But they’d be wrong. Musk has openly stated that he is willing to share various proprietary technical information with his competitors if it would help the world’s transition to sustainable energy succeed faster. Would Bezos give away Amazon’s secrets. Take a guess.
Another interesting tidbit – Both SpaceX and Tesla have publicly disavowed all copyright claims to their photos, videos or other marketing assets. They also do zero paid advertising. This is brilliant and has made them money in the end, but more importantly it is additional proof that it is the success of the mission, a mission that ultimately benefits all humanity more than any singe individual, that is paramount in his thinking.
Though Musk may not realize it, he and Steve Jobs are kindred spirits
The only other highly successful tech visionary that had this kind of focus on the real success, which can by definition only ever be success for all, if Steve Jobs. With so much misinformation and focus on meaningless stats, like whose stock is worth the most paper dollars (printed at will by the Fed) at any given moment, it is often misunderstood that the mission and the sincerity and effectiveness of the mission that will always matter in the end.
Probably the greatest gift Bezos ever has or ever will give to humanity was via his divorce. Any other “charitable” act he will ever commit will be, first and foremost, have the goal of improving his image and stroking his massive ego.
Therein lies the difference.
Early Thursday Tesla shares (TSLA) rose by 6%, and further lifting the CEO’s stock holdings and options by $10 billion, resulting in the net worth of approximately $191 billion.
Musk edged past the Amazon founder who is currently has the net worth of around $187 billion.
Musk, who pinned the following past tweet from 2018 explained his intentions and how he will use money from his success, “You should ask why I would want money. The reason is not what you think. Very little time for recreation. Don’t have vacation homes or yachts or anything like that.”
About half my money is intended to help problems on Earth & half to help establish a self-sustaining city on Mars to ensure continuation of life (of all species) in case Earth gets hit by a meteor like the dinosaurs or WW3 happens & we destroy ourselves
Once more defying logic Trump insists the Democrats are right for wanting bigger checks
In yet another bizarre missive, this time via video, the long fought battle over the 2nd coronavirus relief package is suddenly sent into a chaotic last minute re-do. Trump called the $600 check amount and other aspects of the current bill a “disgrace, at once criticizing the paltry sum and also stating:
“It’s called the Covid relief bill, but it has almost nothing to do with Covid, Congress found plenty of money for foreign countries, lobbyists and special interests while sending the bare minimum to the American people.”
Just how odd this announcement today is underscored by the fact that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who along with Democrats had, for months, pushed similarly sized checks, reacted positively to the announcement:
“Republicans repeatedly refused to say what amount the President wanted for direct checks. At last, the President has agreed to $2,000 — Democrats are ready to bring this to the Floor this week by unanimous consent. Let’s do it!” she said in a tweet.
Republicans repeatedly refused to say what amount the President wanted for direct checks. At last, the President has agreed to $2,000 — Democrats are ready to bring this to the Floor this week by unanimous consent. Let’s do it! https://t.co/Th4sztrpLV
Some have speculated, on twitter and elsewhere, that this was a kind of revenge move by Trump against Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for having the temerity to tell the truth and acknowledge that Joe Biden is the president-elect. After tweets bashing McConnell, this is an escalation of the same tantrum by Trump.
Although the bill was passed by a large bi-partisan majority, it’s massive size — weighing in at 5,593 pages — as well as the rush with which it was passed engendered critics on the left and the right, even as it was passed within less time that many in congress could possible have read it.
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat of New York, likened the rushed vote on so many unread measures to “hostage-taking,” while extreme right wing Senator Ted Cruz, said that it was “ABSURD.”
This is why Congress needs time to actually read this package before voting on it.
Members of Congress have not read this bill. It’s over 5000 pages, arrived at 2pm today, and we are told to expect a vote on it in 2 hours.
As has been the case many times in the past, Trump may suddenly sing a different tune at any moment, or the Republican side might defy Trump and refuse to amend the bill.
Stay tuned for more breaking news, as it will no doubt be coming down the pike any minute now…
