extraction
NO MERRI
see max profit
new tag not implem 519
see algorithm, see AI
CRYPTO-CURRENCY
promoted primary bc:
SEE NAOMI KLEIN
---
AHA EXTRACTION REQUIRES DEREGULATION, OR WORSE WRITE LAWS/REGS TO ADVANTAGE COIP DONOR EG TURBOTAX
---
AHA! THE SOLUTION IS TO RESTORE THE COMMONS
AHA: REDUCTIONISM KILLS/ ENSLAVES/ EXTRACTS
VS SYSTEMS HEAL, CONNECT, FREE
I/THOU VS I/IT
grift is extraction using hype fear
see Debt banks bankster FIRE sector wall st
we vs me (short term, self-ish)
see corp ceo max profit = EXTRACTION; ALL FOCUS ON 1 --> SYS IMBALANCE; TAX CUT --> 80 TRILLION$ TRANSFER TO 1% PATRIOT MILLIOAIRES 2 BILLS 4 26
---
---
---
used AI to deny claims, highest rate
max profit = extraction sys out of balance
aha huge pay rationalized by capitalism gets biggest brain who will create effic that will benefit us all but actually gives motivation for crime, corruption inefficiency wealth redistrib up --> inequality --> chaos
---
---
---
PARKROSE PERMCULTURE IN PREFIGURATION 4 26
[LED BY TURBOTAX AD]
---
Tax Day Could Be Easy. They’re Fighting To Make It Hard.
4 26
RR -->
[00:09:54] David Sirota: We'll be right back. Welcome back to Lever Time. It took another decade for this issue to pop up again. In 1998, democratic President Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress passed a law reviving the possibility of a return free system. That's right. Buried in an IRS overhaul Bill was a provision instructing the Treasury Secretary to quote, develop procedures for the implementation of a return free tax system.
This proposal sat at the IRS for the next few years until George w Bush's Republican administration took a baby step. They didn't implement return free filing. It was something much smaller than that. A proposal just to let you go online and file your taxes to the IRS for free.
[00:10:40] Ken Dam: Paying taxes is really a responsibility of every citizen, but because it's a responsibility, it doesn't mean it has to be arduous, slow, cumbersome, mysterious.
[00:10:53] David Sirota: This was Bush Treasury Department official Ken Dam, describing the initiative
[00:10:57] Ken Dam: Free File Promises to reduce the needless frustrations of millions of dutiful citizens. As they carry out this duty of citizenship, preparing and filing their tax returns,
[00:11:08] David Sirota: and yet even this simple idea really pissed off the tax prep industry.
Intuit, the owner of TurboTax launched a counter attack and mobilized, enlisting the help of a guy named Bernie McKay, a bigwig lobbyist, and former Carter administration official, who did a full court press on Capitol Hill. According to a ProPublica investigation, the industry basically argued that the IRS could not be counted on to roll out such a big program and the argument.
Really resonated with some folks on Capitol Hill. A group of Republican lawmakers wrote to the IRS claiming that there was no reason for the government to compete with quote well-established tax prep companies. The lobbying worked in 2003, the Bush administration and the tax prep companies made a compromise.
It was called the Free File Alliance. An IRS Blessed Consortium of Tax Prep Companies would help some taxpayers file their taxes for free. But the catch was in the federal contract. Which obligated the IRS to not compete with the consortium in providing free online tax return preparation and filing services to taxpayers
[00:12:22] Julie Story: crash and burn.
[00:12:24] David Sirota: Yep, another crash and burn. But after getting reelected. George W. Bush went back to the tax complexity fight once again. In January, 2005, he announced a whole new advisory panel to evaluate ways to simplify the tax system.
[00:12:40] George W Bush: These fine, distinguished citizens will be taking a good hard look at the tax code....
[00:13:22] David Sirota: The new advisory panel devoted an entire day of public testimony to reviewing Reagan's original return free tax filing idea, which seemed like a really encouraging sign.
We're going ballistic, ma. Go get 'em. But then came the testimony of anti-tax power broker Grover Norquist, a conservative then at the zenith of his political power in Washington. The transcript of the hearing shows him excoriating the idea in what would become a set of talking points that Norquist and others would repeat.
Over and over again in the ensuing years, it's like playing in Las Vegas. Norquist said the house sets the rules and the house has its fingers on the scales. Do you really want to go and argue with the IRS? If they've sent you a bill that's higher than you think it ought to be. It also gives the advantage just as the house in Las Vegas.
He said the interests of the government. Is to maximize its revenue. That testimony casting return free filing as a stealth tax increase, it set the idea back into another free fall. Sub controller, losing controller return free filing officially crashed and burned again when George w Bush's advisory committee left it out of its final report.
Then in 2007, Barack Obama picked up the cause of return free filing. The then presidential candidate was seemingly ready to fight the tax prep industry. ProPublica reported that Obama gave a speech to an audience full of tax wonks in Washington, where he said quote. The government already collects wage and bank account information, so there's no reason the IRS can't send Americans prefilled tax forms to verify.
This means no more worry, no more wasted time, no more extra expenses for a tax preparer. But Obama quickly learned his lesson too. The tax prep lobby was not to be messed with. Bernie McKay and the band of Intuit lobbyists got to work pushing Congress to introduce a series of bills to prohibit the IRS from building its own free tax filing system.
As campaign cash from the tax prep industry flowed to lawmakers, the public opposition was led in part. By Grover Norquist, casting it as a scheme to jack up everyone's taxes.
[00:15:42] Grover Norquist: When this is was done in other places, the government makes a lot of money. Why? Because when the government does your taxes for you, they maximize their revenue, not getting your tax returns accurate.
[00:15:54] David Sirota: That's Norquist in a newsmax interview from 2014.
[00:15:58] Grover Norquist: I think the idea of of having the government do your taxes for you is dead. Dead, dead. That's an important part of tax reform. Killing this idea of the government reaching out, knowing everything about you doing your taxes for you.
[00:16:12] David Sirota: When around this time, Republican lawmakers caught wind, that the IRS might be looking into a realtime data collection system that might later be needed for a return free system.
They pounced.
[00:16:24] IRS Oversight: This subcommittee has placed report language in our annual appropriations bills, by the way, since 2 0 9 Pro prohibiting the IRS from using any funds on a simple tax return pilot program.
[00:16:34] David Sirota: This was a Republican congressman interrogating Obama's IRS Chief at a congressional hearing in 2014.
[00:16:40] IRS Oversight: Are you aware of any further exploration and implementation by the IRS
[00:16:44] David Sirota: Obama's IRS Chief Quickly backed down.
[00:16:47] John Koskinen: The thing that has been the focus of a lot of external societies is the idea of could we pre-populate a return form, get information in pre-populate so you could look at it, and then you could make decisions or the IRS could even file your return for you.
We're not doing anything with that. We have no, uh, no program going forward that I know of, and, uh, certainly we don't intend to do anything like that without talking to you
[00:17:06] David Sirota: once again, after briefly taking flight, the idea of a return free tax system fell out of the sky. The
[00:17:13] Top Gun Clip: goddamn plane has creed into the mountains.
[00:17:17] David Sirota: There was of course, one more test flight as part of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act that President Biden signed. The IRS budget was significantly increased after years of cuts, and the legislation included a new direct file system, which was rolled out in 2024.
[00:17:35] WPRI: This year, there is a new software pilot program being offered in 12 states called Direct File.
It opens to qualifying taxpayers in mid-March.
Your eligibility for direct file does not depend on your income.
[00:17:49] David Sirota: Direct file was a free online service that allowed taxpayers to file their federal tax returns directly with the IRS. Again, this wasn't return free filing. But it was the government's strongest attempt to at least give you a way to file your taxes without the added fees and shady upsells of private companies.
The program was run by the IRS itself, and it ended up being a policy experiment that went surprisingly well. It was rolled out slowly and intentionally so that issues could be seen and addressed quickly. At first, it was limited to really simple filings, and then additional tax complexities were added later on, making it more accessible to more and more taxpayers Overall, the pilot program showed.
Big promise with 94% customer satisfaction that gave a green light for the program to expand beyond the first 12 states it started in. But at this point, I'm guessing, you know what happened when Donald Trump won his second presidential term
[00:18:55] NBC10: starting 2026, the program will no longer be available for taxpayers.
President Trump has said he was looking into getting rid of direct file. He claimed it was. A waste of taxpayers' money because commercial tax preparation companies already offer free filing programs.
[00:19:12] David Sirota: The campaign to kill the successful and popular direct file program was fast and furious as soon as Trump won the 2024 election, nearly 30 house Republicans sent a letter to Trump in December, 2024, just after he'd won, asking him to end direct file on his very first day in office.
The lawmakers had raked in more than $1.8 million of campaign cash from, you guessed it, tax preparation companies and their proxies. Meanwhile, turbo Tax's parent company, Intuit, donated $1 million to Trump's inauguration. Direct file in a lot of ways had been the closest thing to what Ronald Reagan had proposed back in 1985.
...
As I've gone back and forth with my own accountant in this last few weeks, getting more and more annoyed at all the red tape, watching more and more of my time sucked away into a mountain of paperwork. I've been thinking a lot about this interchange on CNBC from a few years back.
[00:23:00] CNBC (Aaron Ross Sorkin): Grover, I wanted to ask you about this.
There's this bill out there, it seems bipartisan and I, I'm surprised by it.
[00:23:06] David Sirota: That was journalist Andrew Ross Sorkin asking anti-tax activist Grover Norquist, why he's fought return free filing for so many years.
[00:23:15] CNBC (Aaron Ross Sorkin): That effectively makes it a a, a permanent ban barring the IRS from ever developing its own online tax filing service.
This would've been. Uh, a free service that would've made paying taxes cheaper and easier, especially for people at the bottom and the middle who are spending, uh, in often cases, you know, several hundred dollars a year, it would actually be a tax cut for most Americans to do this. Why try to block something like that?
[00:23:41] David Sirota: Norquist first insisted that private tax prep companies do provide some free services to the very poor. And then Norquist went on a rant.
[00:23:49] Grover Norquist: The real goal of the Democrats, and we saw this in California, is they want the government to do your taxes for you. Yeah. Like Europe does. They send you a bill. Go ahead and argue with the government.
And when California put that together, you know what? They scored it as a significant revenue raiser 'cause they intended to, to write your tax bill. So it'd be higher than it than you would expect to pay. Now, this is a way to raise taxes. And to completely strip you of all privacy. So
[00:24:15] CNBC (Aaron Ross Sorkin): grow, grow
[00:24:15] David Sirota: Sorkin though, press there.
[00:24:17] CNBC (Aaron Ross Sorkin): Do you have any ideas of how to make it easier and cheaper? Mm-hmm. For American taxpayers to pay their taxes so it doesn't cost them any more money than it already does. It'd just be so much easier. Who, people who are W2 filers, they get a postcard. It says what, what the number is. You either sign it or you, or you go off and you do your own, you do your own tax plan.
[00:24:37] David Sirota: Norquist then started reciting more anti-tax talking points as usual, casting the IRS as a rapacious monster.
[00:24:45] Grover Norquist: The federal government takes about 18% of everybody's money. There's no pleasant, cheap, easy, or uncomplicated way to do that. You want simplicity, you want fairness, make the tax bill lower,
[00:24:56] David Sirota: and that's when Sorkin just scream the quiet part about the whole issue.
[00:25:01] CNBC (Aaron Ross Sorkin): You have no, um, rival idea about how to make it easier for Americans to pay their taxes. I want their tax because I think ultimately your idea is to make it harder for people to pay their taxes so they hate their taxes and push for lower taxes.
[00:25:14] David Sirota: That's it right there. That's what's also underneath all of this, beyond just the tax prep companies wanting to protect their profits, there's a powerful arch conservative, anti-tax movement that wants you to hate literally everything about taxes, and so they've succeeded.
In creating an awful tax process. But I wanna go back to something I alluded to at the beginning. Taxes are not theft. As the anti-tax movement likes to insist. Taxes are the necessary price we pay for a functional society. It's what we pay for roads, bridges, water systems, schools, and all the stuff we call civilization.
What is theft? Is politicians helping giant corporations steal our money and our time just to file our taxes. So as the tax filing deadline approaches, as some of you are stressed out. By Byzantine filing forms or the fear of paying more than you owe or of being audited for a simple mistake, don't forget it does not have to be this way.
---
---}:
Our digital lives are increasingly dominated by a handful of powerful tech platforms. Once promising prosperity and democracy, the internet has instead allowed companies like Google, Amazon and Meta to extract money, data and attention from users on an unparalleled scale. Tim Wu, a former technology advisor to President Biden, argues that the government is failing us while tech monopolies deepen wealth divides and enable authoritarianism. We talk to him about how we can take back power from Big Tech. Wu’s new book is “The Age of Extraction: How Tech Platforms Conquered the Economy and Threaten Our Future Prosperity.”
Guests:
Tim Wu,professor of law, Columbia Law School
---
---
an DN 5 25
An alliance between the far right and Silicon Valley oligarchs has given rise to a form of “end times fascism,” says journalist Naomi Klein, who details in a recent essay co-authored with Astra Taylor how many wealthy elites are preparing for the end of the world even as they contribute to growing inequality, political instability and the climate crisis. Klein says that while billionaires dream of escaping to bunkered enclaves or even to space, President Donald Trump and other right-wing leaders are turning their countries into militarized fortress states to keep out immigrants from abroad and ramp up authoritarian control domestically.
“There’s always an apocalyptic quality to fascism, but fascism of the 1930s and ’40s had a horizon” for a utopian future, says Klein. Today, by contrast, “we’re up against people who are actively betting against the future — not just actively betting against it, but fueling the fires that are burning this world.”
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman.
We spend the rest of the hour with award-winning journalist and author Naomi Klein. She has a major new piece out, co-authored with Astra Taylor, for The Guardian newspaper. It’s headlined “The rise of end times fascism.” It looks at the apocalyptic fervor of the far right.
In it, they write, quote, “[T]he most powerful people in the world are preparing for the end of the world, an end they themselves are frenetically accelerating. That is not so far away from the more mass-market vision of fortressed nations that has gripped the [hard] right globally, from Italy to Israel, Australia to the United States: in a time of ceaseless peril, openly supremacist movements in these countries are positioning their relatively wealthy states as armed bunkers,” Naomi Klein writes.
She is also professor of climate justice at the University of British Columbia, founding co-director of the UBC Centre for Climate Justice. Her latest book, Doppelganger: A Trip into the Mirror World.
Naomi, welcome back to Democracy Now! It’s great to have you with us. If you can start off by talking about your piece and what exactly you mean by talking about the end times, fascism?
NAOMI KLEIN: Well, it’s very good to be with you, Amy.
This isn’t the most cheerful piece I’ve ever written, with Astra Taylor, a very close collaborator, founder of the Debt Collective. And we were trying to kind of map what is similar and what is different about the type of far-right politics that we’re seeing today. And I should say, the piece is not only grim. It also looks at what this can mean for a response to this particular form of fascism, because we can’t fight it if we don’t understand it. So, I think a lot of very good scholarship attempting to understand authoritarianism today, whether it’s Trump or figures like Duterte or Modi, have looked at similarities between these far-right figures and, say, Mussolini or Hitler, and have taken a kind of a checklist approach of looking at what is similar to the past, right? And I think there’s a lot of value in that. But the risk of it is that it doesn’t look at what is new and what is particular to our time.
Fascism always is an attempt by the right to resolve a crisis of its own era. Right? So, in the 1930s, they were attempting to resolve, you know, in Germany, the humiliations of the First World War, the impacts of the Great Depression, and to propose a unity in the face of that for the in-group. But our moment is different, and one of the things that makes it different — I mean, if you think about fascism in the 1930s, this is before the atomic bomb. It’s before they understood climate change. And we are in a moment where our elites, whether they admit it or not, do understand that our economic model — and I’ve written books about this and talked about it with you in the past — is at war with life on Earth, right? And they are barreling down this road of more and more extraction of fossil fuels, of all kinds of — you know, basically, anything they can extract from this Earth and turn into energy and money, particularly now with AI, which is a energy and resource hog — water, LNG, critical minerals, all of it.}:
So, we’re trying to understand how this is informing the kind of fascism that we’re seeing, and also we’re trying to understand what unites this kind of strange Frankenstein coalition that Trump represents, where he’s bringing together these — you know, the richest people in the world who have ever existed with many working-class people, so what binds the vision, right?
:{:{And what we cope with in this piece, or what we propose in this piece, is that they all have given up on this world. Like, they all have bought into a kind of apocalyptic fever — right? — whether it’s Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos and their investments in outer space and sort of writing off this planet, whether AI, which is willing to sacrifice this animate world in order to build an artificial world, or whether it’s the more populist MAGA vision of the fortress nation-state — right? — which is thinking, “OK, we know more and more people are going to be coming. }:
We know that disaster is on the horizon.” I’ve listened to a lot of Steve Bannon for — you know, when I was writing Doppelganger, and it’s all very survivalist, right? You know, all of the commercials, pretty much, are selling, you know, gold, because the economy is going to collapse, you know, ready-to-eat meals for 90 days, because you never know what’s going to happen. So, it sees the nation and the in-group as being inside the bunker, and then it’s exiling the out-group to all of these lawless territories that you’ve been covering on the show. So, it’s not the same vision, but what it shares is this apocalyptic fever.}:
And then, of course, all of it is following a similar structure, like narrative structure, to the biblical Rapture. And, of course, you have people who believe in that within the Trump coalition, who are, you know, Christian Zionists, like Mike Huckabee and Pete Hegseth, who believe that the actual end times is coming, and they think it’s all going to go down in Israel. And all of the horror that you report on so well and so committedly on the show, these are all good signs if you believe in the Rapture, right? Because it means that the end is coming, and the faithful are going to be lifted up to a golden city in the sky. So, you know, what we’re looking at is like the religious version of that story, the the fundamentalist religious version of that story, where you literally believe you’re going to be saved and taken up to heaven, but also the secular vision, where your wealth protects you, or your citizenship protects you, and you get your own version of that golden, bunkered city.
:{:{AMY GOODMAN: You mentioned Gaza, and you just came from the Jewish Voice for Peace conference in Baltimore, where several thousand people gathered from around the country. Our latest headline, the Israeli military calling up tens of thousands of reservists as Israel’s security cabinet unanimously approved plans this weekend to expand its assault on Gaza, where Israel has already killed over 52,000 Palestinians — and that’s by far an undercount — in the last 18, 19 months. Israel has killed more than 2,400 Palestinians just since it shattered the ceasefire in March. This comes as Israel’s devastating blockade in food aid has entered its third month. Palestinian health officials say 57 Palestinians have already starved to death.}:
According to UNICEF, more than 9,000 children have been admitted for treatment for acute malnutrition so far this year. And aid groups, like Norwegian Refugee Council, blasting a new Israeli proposal to take control in distribution and put U.S. security contractors in charge. If you can talk, as you so often do, about what’s happening in Gaza and the West Bank and what the centrality of Israel in President Trump and the current U.S. government — although it was also the past, President Biden’s worldview and approach to foreign policy?}:
NAOMI KLEIN: So, I don’t think there is a single answer to understanding what the driving forces are. And this is what we’re trying to get at, is that there’s a kind of an overlap of these different apocalyptic worldviews. Some of them are religious, and some of them are secular, right? So, I think that people who subscribe to this, like, literalist version of the Rapture believe that all of this is good news, in the sense that, according to the story that they believe in, that the Israelites have to return to Greater Israel. Those are the preconditions for the return of the Messiah. They have to rebuild the Third Temple. So you have this convergence of interests between the religious extremists and the Netanyahu government, who are absolutely committed to rebuilding the Third Temple. They really want to do it. They want to destroy Al-Aqsa. This is why so much attention is focused on it.
But then, you know, does Trump believe that? I don’t think Trump believes that. I mean, what he views for Gaza is he sees resources. He sees money. He sees a private, you know, resort.
AMY GOODMAN: Resort.
NAOMI KLEIN: Exactly. But this is something I’ve been saying from the beginning. I think the interests have been fairly consistent in terms of what the end goal is, which is a depopulation of Gaza, pushing Palestinians out, whether through death or whether through forced exile, whether through ethnic cleansing. And under the Biden administration, there was a denial that that was what was going on. And under the Trump administration, it’s all out in the open. So, you know, this is what is going on.
Now, what the reason for that is, I think, differs. But this is what — part of what we’re getting at in the piece, Astra and I, is that there is a confluence of interests in terms of what Israel represents. Some of the supporters of the Trump administration in the tech industry are talking about wanting freedom cities, for instance, these privatized, corporate cities. And they talk about this as tech Zionism. They have a lot of admiration for the idea that Israel was created, they say, you know, from a book, Theodor Herzl’s books. And they said, “Well, why can’t we start our own country, our own private countries? Why do we have to — you know, why do we have to abide by the rules of the nation-state?”
So, I think part of the support for Israel isn’t just our classic understandings either of Jewish Zionism or Christian Zionism, although that’s absolutely going on. It’s also this idea of a very technologically advanced startup country, right? Israel has marketed itself that way. And a lot of these tech companies want to do that in San Francisco. They want to push everybody out who doesn’t agree with them, who’s poor, who have more needs, and create their kind of corporate, privatized utopia. So, you know, I’m not saying this is a coherent agenda. I’m saying that there’s a lot of overlapping stories that follow a similar structure and share similar goals, if that makes sense.
AMY GOODMAN: I mean, yes, I mean, the overall issue, obviously, is hard to make sense of.
NAOMI KLEIN: Mm-hmm, yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: And most Trump’s supporters are neither wealthy nor are they Christian Zionists. So, why are they backing this whole approach?
NAOMI KLEIN: Well, it’s not clear the extent to which they actively back it, but I think that they see a kinship in the ethnostate — right? — because a lot of Trump supporters are becoming increasingly Christian nationalist about the United States. And this has been carefully fostered by figures like Steve Bannon. And so, when they look at Israel, they see a country that is openly an ethnostate that is fortressing itself in a sea of its enemies, you know, and they want to do something similar. And they’re sharing technologies. They’re sharing, you know, legal precedents, tools. So, there’s a — you know, there’s a kinship. And, you know, we’re seeing this now with India with its attacks on Kashmir, following us, you know, using similar techniques that, you know, Israel has used in Gaza. So, there is a kind of a solidarity of the ethnostates. And they are sharing — you know, they’re even trading trinkets of golden pagers and swapping chainsaws. You know, this is something that we — I think, you know, when you’re inside the crucible of it here in the United States under Trump, it’s hard to see the extent to which this is an international project on the right, and they are influencing one another.
AMY GOODMAN: And what does unite them, you know, this whole fortress mentality, is this hatred of immigrants. You have —
NAOMI KLEIN: Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: — President Trump just saying he doesn’t even know — he’s not a lawyer, so he doesn’t know if he has to uphold the Constitution, he said.
NAOMI KLEIN: Right. I mean, this is what I’m trying to get at about the awareness that we are in an age of consequences, that when you don’t act in the face of the climate crisis for decades, when scientists have been warning you, that more and more of the world becomes uninhabitable, and, lo and behold, people move to try to find safety in the face of wars, in the face of economic deprivation and in the face of ecological disasters.
And so, that fortressing of the nation-state — and this is what I think, you know, Israel’s come to represent, just as a very small nation that is extremely fortressed — right? — whether it’s with the high-tech walls, the Iron Dome. Trump says now, “I want not an Iron Dome, but a golden dome.” Right? That —
AMY GOODMAN: Here.
NAOMI KLEIN: Here. That all of this is, whether it’s stated explicitly or not —
AMY GOODMAN: And a military parade that’ll cost tens of millions —
NAOMI KLEIN: Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: — of dollars, even as he slices and dices the government, on his birthday, in June.
NAOMI KLEIN: Right. So the pattern is protecting the in-group and exiling and cleansing the out-groups. Right? And so, that, I think, is — you know, if there is support among the MAGA base for Israel, it’s less out of a love for Israel than more out of an identification, like they are doing what we want to do here.
AMY GOODMAN: You write many things in your piece, and I just want to go to one of them. You say — in talking about Musk’s apocalyptic vision, you talk about, and also detailing the end times fascism, this whole issue of the rise of the city state, the corporate city state. I think this is a new concept for many. They’re not going to know what you’re talking about.
NAOMI KLEIN: Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: In southern Texas, Starbase, just this group of people, who are mainly workers at SpaceX, have just voted to make a city right there?
NAOMI KLEIN: Mm-hmm, yeah. And we’ve had sort of — I mean, the idea of a company town is not entirely new, right? And Disney had Celebration, Florida, and there are lineages to this, right? Colonial lineages to this. You know, I live in Canada, which started as the Hudson’s Bay Company, right? So it was a company before it was a country. So there is some precedent for this.
But I think what this is — I’ve been following this out of the corner of my eye, Amy, because this is where libertarians have been going for a while. There was an — Peter Thiel has been obsessed with this idea. It’s increasingly being called exit, so exiting the nation and just starting your own country, where you can set your own tax level, you can make your own regulations.
AMY GOODMAN: Or not.
NAOMI KLEIN: Or not. And countries — and these little corporate countries will compete with one another to try to attract capital, right? So, in a way, it’s an extension of the free trade zone — right? — where this is, in a way, like a denationalized country within a country. But Trump started to float this in 2023, the idea that he would create 10 freedom cities, on the campaign trail. I don’t think his base much knew what he was talking about. But now you have all these lobbyists who fully intend to take him up on it. And we’re starting to see the beginning of this with this SpaceX city.
AMY GOODMAN: So, you also write about El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center, the notorious prison, CECOT, where so many hundreds of people have been sent from the United States, and at the same time, in the last 24 hours, President Trump saying he wants to reopen the notorious Alcatraz —
NAOMI KLEIN: Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: — an island in San Francisco. If you can talk about the prison as a model for what Trump wants to put forward, and particularly in relation, as we see motivating so much, to immigrants?
NAOMI KLEIN: Well, this is an incredibly bleak vision. So, repression is always a huge part of any kind of fascist project, right? You need to contain the out-group. You need to disappear the out-group. So this part of it is not new. But I think what is so worrying to me is that Trump was elected promising all kinds of things to his base, right? He promised to eliminate inflation. He promised to bring these great jobs home. He’s not delivering on any of that. So the sadistic part of his project is really all he has to offer, right?
I think one of the most chilling things I’ve ever seen in the United States was Trump sharing that video at his hundred-day rally of just pure sadism, of just looking at prisoners, as entertainment, being shaved, being shackled, being paraded. And he’s not delivering on the price of eggs. And he’s not delivering on the jobs, by the way, because he’s throwing all in— he’s going all in on AI. So the jobs that are coming back seem to be mainly for robots. It’s not actually for his base. And so, this scales up the need for the sadism and these spectacles, right? And I think that that’s what something like Alcatraz represents. He’s a TV producer, first and foremost, right? He’s producing spectacles. And the less he has to offer economically, tangibly, materially, the more he leans on the sadism.
AMY GOODMAN: You write, “The governing ideology of the far right … has become a monstrous, supremacist survivalism. … Our task is to build a movement strong enough to stop them.” What would that movement look like, or what do you see is being formed right now?
NAOMI KLEIN: You know, what we’re doing in this piece by laying out the bleakness of the vision — and when I say “bleakness,” you know, I think it’s beyond something we’ve seen before, because there’s always an apocalyptic quality to fascism, but fascism of the 1930s and '40s had a horizon. Like, after the apocalypse, people were being promised a future, a pastoral, peaceful little piece of land where they could live out their lives, you know? Even though Trump talks about a golden age, there really isn't a future that the base believes in, you know? And this is what I’ve learned by consuming far too much MAGA media, Amy. They envision a future of endless war, right? And this is why they’re bunkering down. This is why they’re buying ready-to-eat meals to last. This is why they’re buying gold and crypto. They think the whole thing is going down. So —
AMY GOODMAN: And why Elon Musk is trying to have so many children, at least 14 at this point. But he’s actually explicitly texted it, saying, “We’ve got to do this much faster,” as he proposed to one of the women he has children with, saying, “We’ve got to start using surrogates.”
NAOMI KLEIN: So, they don’t believe in the future, is the bottom line. And that is — you know, I think I’ve been in a lot of progressive spaces in recent months where we’ve talked about building these very broad coalitions, including with people who we don’t entirely disagree with. I’ve never encountered a potential coalition more broad than the idea of: How about if we believe in this world? How about if we believe in the future? Because we’re up against people who are actively betting against the future, right? Not just actively betting against it —
AMY GOODMAN: Twenty seconds.
NAOMI KLEIN: — but fueling the fires that are burning this world, actively fueling it. So, I think that if we have the courage, really, to look at the bleakness of what they believe in, which is an apocalyptic future, then we have our work cut out for us of being the people who actually believe in this realm, in this world, in the beauty of creation and of each other.
AMY GOODMAN: Naomi Klein, I want to thank you for being with us, award-winning journalist, author, columnist. We’ll link to your piece with Astra Taylor, “The rise of end times fascism.” I’m Amy Goodman. This is Democracy Now!
NOW READ:Trump’s clown car cabinet is driving off a cliff
---
12 24
no lnx
Alternet+ Login
When profits kill: The deadly cost of treating healthcare as a business
Thom Hartmann December 10, 2024
The recent assassination of the CEO of UnitedHealthcare — the health insurance company with, reportedly, the highest rate of claims rejections (and thus dead, wounded, and furious customers and their relations) — gives us a perfect window to understand the stupidity and danger of the Musk/Trump/Ramaswamy strategy of “cutting government” to “make it more efficient, run it like a corporation.”
Consider health care, which in almost every other developed country in the world is legally part of the commons — the infrastructure of the nation, like our roads, public schools, parks, police, military, libraries, and fire departments — owned by the people collectively and run for the sole purpose of meeting a basic human need.
The entire idea of government — dating all the way back to Gilgamesh and before — is to fulfill that singular purpose of meeting citizens’ needs and keeping the nation strong and healthy. That’s a very different mandate from that of a corporation, which is solely directed (some argue by law) to generate profits.
The Veterans’ Administration healthcare system, for example, is essentially socialist rather than capitalist. The VA owns the land and buildings, pays the salaries of everybody from the surgeons to the janitors, and makes most all decisions about care. Its primary purpose — just like that of the healthcare systems of every other democracy in the world — is to keep and make veterans healthy. Its operation is nearly identical to that of Britain’s beloved socialist National Health Service.
UnitedHealthcare similarly owns its own land and buildings, and its officers and employees behave in a way that’s aligned with the company’s primary purpose, but that purpose is to make a profit. Sure, it writes checks for healthcare that’s then delivered to people, but that’s just the way UnitedHealthcare makes money; writing checks and, most importantly, refusing to write checks.
Think about it. If UnitedHealthcare’s main goal was to keep people healthy, they wouldn’t be rejecting 32 percent of claims presented to them. Like the VA, when people needed help they’d make sure they got it.
Instead, they make damn sure their executives get millions of dollars every year (and investors get billions) because making a massive profit ($23 billion last year, and nearly every penny arguably came from saying “no” to somebody’s healthcare needs) is their real business.
On the other hand, if the VA’s goal was to make or save money by “being run efficiently like a company,” they’d be refusing service to a lot more veterans (which it appears is on the horizon).
This is the essential difference between government and business, between meeting human needs (social) and reaching capitalism’s goal (profit).
It’s why its deeply idiotic to say, as Republicans have been doing since the Reagan Revolution, that “government should be run like a business.” That’s nearly as crackbrained a suggestion as saying that fire departments should make a profit (a doltish notion promoted by some Libertarians). Government should be run like a government, and companies should be run like companies.
Given how obvious this is with even a little bit of thought, where did this imbecilic idea that government should run like a business come from?
Turns out, it’s been driven for most of the past century by morbidly rich businessmen (almost entirely men) who don’t want to pay their taxes. As Jeff Tiedrich notes:
“The scariest sentence in the English language is: ‘I’m a billionaire, and I’m here to help.’”
Rightwing billionaires who don’t want to pay their fair share of the costs of society set up think tanks, policy centers, and built media operations to promote their idea that the commons are really there for them to plunder under the rubric of privatization and efficiency.
They’ve had considerable success. Slightly more than half of Medicare is now privatized, multiple Republican-controlled states are in the process of privatizing their public school systems, and the billionaire-funded Project 2025 and the incoming Trump administration have big plans for privatizing other essential government services.
The area where their success is most visible, though, is the American healthcare system. Because the desire of rightwing billionaires not to pay taxes have prevailed ever since Harry Truman first proposed single-payer healthcare like most of the rest of the world has, Americans spend significantly more on healthcare than other developed countries.
In 2022, citizens of the United States spent an estimated $12,742 per person on healthcare, the highest among wealthy nations. This is nearly twice the average of $6,850 per person for other wealthy OECD countries.
Over the next decade, it is estimated that America will spend between $55 and $60 trillion on healthcare if nothing changes and we continue to cut giant corporations in for a large slice of our healthcare money.
On the other hand, Senator Bernie Sanders’ single-payer Medicare For All plan would only cost $32 trillion over the next 10 years. And it would cover everybody in America, every man woman and child, in every medical aspect including vision, dental, psychological, and hearing.
Currently 25 million Americans have no health insurance whatsoever.
If we keep our current system, the difference between it and the savings from a single-payer system will end up in the pockets, in large part, of massive insurance giants and their executives and investors. And as campaign contributions for bought off Republicans. This isn’t rocket science.
And you’d think that giving all those extra billions to companies like UnitedHealthcare would result in America having great health outcomes. But, no.
Despite insanely higher spending, the U.S. has a lower life expectancy at birth, higher rates of chronic diseases, higher rates of avoidable or treatable deaths, and higher maternal and infant mortality rates than any of our peer nations.
Compared to single-payer nations like Canada, the U.S. also has a higher incidence of chronic health conditions, Americans see doctors less often and have fewer hospital stays, and the U.S. has fewer hospital beds and physicians per person.
No other country in the world allows a predatory for-profit industry like this to exist as a primary way of providing healthcare. Every other advanced democracy considers healthcare a right of citizenship, rather than an opportunity for a handful of industry executives to hoard a fortune, buy Swiss chalets, and fly around on private jets.
This is one of the most widely shared graphics on social media over the past few days in posts having to do with Thompson’s murder…
Sure, there are lots of health insurance companies in other developed countries, but instead of offering basic healthcare (which is provided by the government) mostly wealthy people subscribe to them to pay for premium services like private hospital rooms, international air ambulance services, and cosmetic surgery.
Essentially, UnitedHealthcare’s CEO Brian Thompson made decisions that killed Americans for a living, in exchange for $10 million a year. He and his peers in the industry are probably paid as much as they are because there is an actual shortage of people with business training who are willing to oversee decisions that cause or allow others to die in exchange for millions in annual compensation.
That Americans are well aware of this obscenity explains the gleeful response to his murder that’s spread across social media, including the refusal of online sleuths to participate in finding his killer.
It shouldn’t need be said that vigilantism is no way to respond to toxic individuals and companies that cause Americans to die unnecessarily. Hopefully, Thompson’s murder will spark a conversation about the role of government and the commons — and the very real need to end the corrupt privatization of our healthcare system (including the Medicare Advantage scam) that has harmed so many of us and killed or injured so many of the people we love.
ALSO READ: CEO shooting suspect’s manifesto claims violence is answer to health care industry: report
===
---}:
AN 10 24
Anyone who signs an online political petition is likely to be bombarded with fundraising requests. Donation pitches can be quite aggressive in presidential elections, and convince voters to dig deep even if their finances are stretched thin.
In a report published on October 22, nine CNN journalists detail Republican fundraising that targets seniors who are giving away much more than they can afford to.
According to CNN, "More than 1000 reports filed with government agencies and consumer advocacy groups reviewed by CNN, along with an analysis of campaign finance data and interviews with dozens of contributors and their family members, show how deceptive political fundraisers have victimized hundreds of elderly Americans and misled those battling dementia or other cognitive impairments into giving away millions of dollars — far more than they ever intended. Some unintentionally joined the ranks of the top grassroots political donors in the country as they tapped into retirement savings and went into debt, contributing six-figure sums through thousands of transactions."
READ MORE:Researcher explains why 'dark' new GOP survey is 'keeping me up at night'
On X, formerly Twitter, Politico's Nicholas Wu highlights one of the examples described in the report: an 82-year-old woman "who wore pajamas with holes in them because she didn't want to spend money on new ones" and "didn’t realize she had given Republicans more than $350,000 while living in a 1000-square-foot Baltimore condo since 2020.'"
CNN's report also describes "80-year-old communications engineer from Texas" who "had saved for decades, driving around in an old car and buying clothes from thrift stores so he'd have enough money to enjoy his retirement years."
"But as dementia robbed him of his reasoning abilities," CNN explains, "he began making online political donations over and over again — eventually telling his son he believed he was part of a network of political operatives communicating with key Republican leaders. In less than two years, the man became one of the country's largest grassroots supporters of the Republican Party, ultimately giving away nearly half a million dollars to former President Donald Trump and other candidates. Now, the savings account he spent his whole life building is practically empty."
According to CNN, the donors cited in the report "were often in their 80s and 90s."
READ MORE:How Trump could pull off 'a real coup' if he loses to Harris: report
"They included retired public workers, house cleaners and veterans, widows living alone, nursing home residents and people who donated more money than they paid for their homes, according to records and interviews," CNN explains. "The money they gave came from pensions, Social Security payments and retirement savings accounts meant to last decades."
CNN continues, "Donors took out new credit cards and mortgages to pay for the contributions. In some cases, they gave away most of their life savings. Their cell phones and email inboxes were so full of pleas for money that they missed photos of their grandkids and other important messages. At least one person continued to be charged for contributions after his death."
READ MORE:Donald 'let me believe' in abortion rights: Melania Trump
*Read CNN's full report at this link.
===
mma
The right-wing media is steeped in con culture
Laura Ingraham hawks gold by warning of economic disaster under Harris — but economists say Trump would be worse
Written by Matt Gertz
Published 10/01/24
When the going gets tough, right-wing commentators get grifting — though to be fair, they also rile up their audiences so they can profit off them in good times.
Take Laura Ingraham. On Tuesday morning, the Fox News host previewed the evening’s vice presidential debate between Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Ohio Sen. JD Vance by urging her X followers to buy gold and silver from her sponsor in order to avoid “a potential Harris/Walz disaster” to their personal finances.
Ingraham linked to a dedicated landing page featuring her endorsement of GoldPro, a precious metals investment company whose right-wing sponsors have included Ingraham’s Fox colleague Sean Hannity and Stew Peters, a white nationalist and antisemitic streamer who has called for the execution of journalists.
Ingraham’s LauraLikesGold.com testimonial states that “our current Administration has done nothing to make the lives of everyday American families better,” citing factors like “Rising Inflation,” “Increasing National debt,” and “a looming recession.”
“Will it ever get better?” she added. “Expert analysts are not hopeful, which is why I encourage you to learn how gold and silver can be a great way to hedge against these economic factors eating away at your nest egg.”
It is certainly amusing that in exchange for money, Ingraham is warning her audience both that former President Donald Trump may lose the 2024 presidential election and that even if he wins, his economic performance will prove so poor that they need to buy gold and silver as a hedge.
But Ingraham’s paid missive both defies what economists and other experts say about the relative merits of the plans put forward by Vice President Kamala Harris and Trump, and provides a stark example of how right-wing pundits enrich themselves on the backs of their followers.
Analyses: Trump’s plans would lead to higher deficits, higher inflation, and lower growth than Harris’
While Ingraham is urging followers to “protect yourself from a potential Harris/Walz disaster” by buying precious metals from her sponsor as a hedge against inflation, debt, and a recession, experts say that Trump is actually the bigger threat on all counts.
More than 400 economists and policymakers signed a letter last month endorsing Harris and touting her plans to “build a strong, pro-growth economy for all Americans.”
By contrast, the letter stated, Trump’s proposed policies — which include plans for massive tariffs on all imported goods, mass deportations, and reducing the independence of the Federal Reserve — “risk reigniting inflation and threaten the United States’ global standing and domestic economic stability. Nonpartisan researchers have predicted that if Donald Trump successfully enacts his agenda, it will lower GDP growth and increase the unemployment rate.”
The mass endorsement from economists came just weeks after 16 Nobel Prize winners released their own letter warning the American public of the devastating effects of Trump's second term agenda.
A new study from the Peterson Institute for International Economics found that “Trump’s promises would spike inflation and wipe out jobs,” according to CNN. The study concluded that Trump’s proposals, if implemented, would trigger a decline in employment of 2.7% to 9% by 2028; a spike in inflation to between 6% and 9.3% by 2026; and 2.8% to nearly 10% lower economic growth as measured by GDP by the end of a second Trump term.
An assessment of the candidates’ plans from Bloomberg News found that Trump’s tax plans would lead to higher national deficits and debt and higher inflation than would Harris’, while his immigration and trade proposals would hammer growth.
- ### The right-wing media is built on grifting
The financial model for right-wing media is built on what I’ve termed con culture: Outlets and commentators attract a loyal audience through political demagoguery, seal them into a bubble by attacking mainstream information sources that present contradictory narratives, and then bilk those marks for all they are worth.
They tell their audience that companies are liberal and corrupt — whether they sell children’s entertainment or razors or nicotine pouches — then offer their own alternatives.
They tell their audience that they can’t trust medical experts — then sell them out to quacks hawking fake cures for real medical conditions and dubious brain pills.
They tell their audience that economic doom is imminent — then peddle them survival food, scammy financial products, and, in Ingraham’s case, precious metals.
These arrangements can prove extremely lucrative for the pundits.
“Two media dealmakers who have been involved in negotiations between conservative media figures and the gold IRA industry said revenue from the companies can amount to as much as 10 percent of total earnings for some personalities … one said the biggest personalities stand to earn millions of dollars a year,” The Washington Post reported in an investigation last year into the right-wing media’s paid promotion of such companies.
Indeed, Trump himself personifies this type of grift. While running for president, he is currently pitching his followers cryptocurrency, watches priced at up to $100,000, his own version of the Bible, an array of pricey branded shoes, digital trading cards, and much, much more.
===
grift extract hype fear diet supplement
-mma 6 24
Swiss America is a gold and silver trading company, for which Trump promotes “The Secret War on Cash,” a report warning consumers about Democrat lawmakers supposedly pushing for a “digital dollar that could allow the government to tell us what we can and cannot buy,” and teaching them how to protect themselves from such “threats facing our freedom and your hard-earned money.” Trump advertised for Swiss America 27 times in this period.
Still of Lara Trump above Swiss America logo
CitationScreenshot of the March 26, 2024, edition of The Right View
{{
msnbc maddow ripped him a new one, details long hist
pretend flowers pizza delivery
268% interest on harlem restaurant?fined for screwing military
poor ppl need cars b/c gop kills mass transit
===
it remains to be seen how successful Donald Trump will ultimately be in appealing Justice Arthur Engoron's sanctions in New York State Attorney General Letitia James' civil fraud case. But for now, he has a financial lifeline while making the appeal: the $175 million bond posted by billionaire Don Hankey, who chairs Knight Specialty Insurance Company.
Since the 80-year-old Hankey posted the bond, his history in the business world has drawn a great deal of scrutiny. The New Republic's Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling, in a biting article published on April 3, stresses that Hankey — who has been called "the king of subprime loans" — has a history of "shady business practices."
The Daily Beast has reported that one of Hankey's companies, Westlake Services, was sued by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) when Trump was president for illegally repossessing 70 cars. And Houghtaling points out that the Westlake debacle wasn't the first time he was "penalized by the feds."
READ MORE:**Trump lawyer threatens Alvin Bragg with 'serious' consequences if Michael Cohen testifies**
"That's all a part of the game to Hankey, who carved out his $7.4 billion fortune through those kinds of predatory practices, targeting low-income customers with high-interest auto loans," Houghtaling explains. "Hankey's Knight Specialty Insurance Company is the group that underwrote Trump's bond for his civil fraud trial, but it’s not Hankey's only investment in Trump's financial situation.
Hankey is also believed to be the largest shareholder in Axos Financial, according to MSNBC’s Lisa Rubin — a financial institution that, in 2022, refinanced more than $50 million of Trump's loans on Trump Tower and Trump National Doral Miami, according to documents filed with the Office of Government Ethics."
Houghtaling points out that Hankey discussed Trump with Forbes during an early April interview.
The billionaire told Forbes, "I'd never met Donald Trump. I'd never talked to him on the phone. I heard that he needed a loan or a bond, and this is what we do. So, we reached out, and he responded."
READ MORE:[Here's what federal law says about Trump 'threatening a sitting president': ex-federal prosecutor
*Read The New Republic's full article at this link.
===}}
bb 6 24
As if dealing with COVID-19, conflicts, and climate change wasn't enough, emerging nations are now suffocating under a colossal $29 trillion in public debt.
According to a new UN report, the debt crisis is so bad that "15 countries are spending more on interest payments than they do on education" and "46 spend more on debt payments than they do on health care."
As the NY Times' Patricia Cohen reports, "Unmanageable debts have been a recurring feature of the modern global economy, but the current wave may well be the worst so far. Overall, government debt worldwide is four times what it was in 2000."
Who is cashing in on poor countries debts? According to the Times: old school development banks and major Western banks, shady private lenders, official creditors like China, "as well as a variety of sometimes secret loan agreements governed by different national regulations."
These lenders rake in extra money with usurious surcharges, too:
Martin Guzmán, a former finance minister of Argentina who also experienced the devastating impact of his native country's debt crisis, was at the Vatican meeting last week. In his view, I.M.F. help is sometimes counterproductive, offering bailout loans, now with high interest rates, that end up increasing a country's already burdensome debt
He has also railed against the extra fees, or surcharges, that the fund imposes on struggling high-risk debtors, siphoning precious funds that could be used to provide health care and rebuild an economy.
The five largest borrowers — Ukraine, Egypt, Argentina, Ecuador and Pakistan — paid $2 billion alone in surcharges last year, according to the Center for Economic and Policy Research. On average, surcharges ended up raising the cost of borrowing for all affected countries by nearly 50 percent.
Until the global financial system is fundamentally reformed, this cycle of debt and misery for emerging nations will keep spinning.
Previously:
===
===
pro pub algo Close oct 2022
on a summer day last year, a group of real estate tech executives gathered at a conference hall in Nashville to boast about one of their company’s signature products: software that uses a mysterious algorithm to help landlords push the highest possible rents on tenants.
“Never before have we seen these numbers,” said Jay Parsons, a vice president of RealPage, as conventiongoers wandered by. Apartment rents had recently shot up by as much as 14.5%, he said in a video touting the company’s services. Turning to his colleague, Parsons asked: What role had the software played?
“I think it’s driving it, quite honestly,” answered Andrew Bowen, another RealPage executive. “As a property manager, very few of us would be willing to actually raise rents double digits within a single month by doing it manually.”
The celebratory remarks were more than swagger. For years, RealPage has sold software that uses data analytics to suggest daily prices for open units. Property managers across the United States have gushed about how the company’s algorithm boosts profits.
“The beauty of YieldStar is that it pushes you to go places that you wouldn’t have gone if you weren’t using it,” said Kortney Balas, director of revenue management at JVM Realty, referring to RealPage’s software in a testimonial video on the company’s website.
The nation’s largest property management firm, Greystar, found that even in one downturn, its buildings using YieldStar “outperformed their markets by 4.8%,” a significant premium above competitors, RealPage said in materials on its website. Greystar uses RealPage’s software to price tens of thousands of apartments.
RealPage became the nation’s dominant provider of such rent-setting software after federal regulators approved a controversial merger in 2017, a ProPublica investigation found, greatly expanding the company’s influence over apartment prices. The move helped the Texas-based company push the client base for its array of real estate tech services past 31,700 customers.
The impact is stark in some markets.
In one neighborhood in Seattle, ProPublica found, 70% of apartments were overseen by just 10 property managers, every single one of which used pricing software sold by RealPage.
To arrive at a recommended rent, the software deploys an algorithm — a set of mathematical rules — to analyze a trove of data RealPage gathers from clients, including private information on what nearby competitors charge.
For tenants, the system upends the practice of negotiating with apartment building staff. RealPage discourages bargaining with renters and has even recommended that landlords in some cases accept a lower occupancy rate in order to raise rents and make more money.
One of the algorithm’s developers told ProPublica that leasing agents had “too much empathy” compared to computer generated pricing.
Apartment managers can reject the software’s suggestions, but as many as 90% are adopted, according to former RealPage employees.
The software’s design and growing reach have raised questions among real estate and legal experts about whether RealPage has birthed a new kind of cartel that allows the nation’s largest landlords to indirectly coordinate pricing, potentially in violation of federal law.
Experts say RealPage and its clients invite scrutiny from antitrust enforcers for several reasons, including their use of private data on what competitors charge in rent. In particular, RealPage’s creation of work groups that meet privately and include landlords who are otherwise rivals could be a red flag of potential collusion, a former federal prosecutor said.
At a minimum, critics said, the software’s algorithm may be artificially inflating rents and stifling competition.
“Machines quickly learn the only way to win is to push prices above competitive levels,” said University of Tennessee law professor Maurice Stucke, a former prosecutor in the Justice Department’s antitrust division.
RealPage acknowledged that it feeds its clients’ internal rent data into its pricing software, giving landlords an aggregated, anonymous look at what their competitors nearby are charging.
A company representative said in an email that RealPage “uses aggregated market data from a variety of sources in a legally compliant manner.”
The company noted that landlords who use employees to manually set prices “typically” conduct phone surveys to check competitors’ rents, which the company says could result in anti-competitive behavior.
“RealPage’s revenue management solutions prioritize a property’s own internal supply/demand dynamics over external factors such as competitors’ rents,” a company statement said, “and therefore help eliminate the risk of collusion that could occur with manual pricing.”
The statement said RealPage’s software also helps prevent rents from reaching unaffordable levels because it detects drops in demand, like those that happen seasonally, and can respond to them by lowering rents.
RealPage did not make Parsons, Bowen or the company’s current CEO, Dana Jones, available for interviews. Balas and a Greystar representative declined to comment on the record about YieldStar. The National Multifamily Housing Council, an industry group, also declined to comment.
Proponents say the software is not distorting the market. RealPage’s CEO told investors five years ago that the company wouldn’t be big enough to harm competition even after the merger. The CEO of one of YieldStar’s earliest users, Ric Campo of Camden Property Trust, told ProPublica that the apartment market in his company’s home city alone is so big and diverse that “it would be hard to argue there was some kind of price fixing.”
What role RealPage’s software has played in soaring rents — which in the decade before the pandemic nearly doubled in some cities — is hard to discern. Inadequate new construction and the tight market for homebuyers have exacerbated an existing housing shortage.
But by RealPage’s own admission, its algorithm is helping drive rents higher.
“Find out how YieldStar can help you outperform the market 3% to 7%,” RealPage urges potential clients on its website.
Few tenants know that such software, owned by a privately held company, has had a hand in rent increases across the country.
In Boston, renter Kaylee Hutchinson said she was puzzled when her landlord — unbeknownst to her, a RealPage client — told her days into the first pandemic lockdowns that her rent was going up. Building staff insisted that the market rate for her apartment was 6.5% higher than she was paying, despite her protests that people were fleeing the city.
Kaylee Hutchinson’s landlord, who uses RealPage’s pricing software, told her rent was going up at the start of the pandemic even as many people were fleeing the city. Credit:Philip Keith, special to ProPublica
A few weeks later, she and her fiancé saw a newly vacant unit in their building advertised online for less. One of their landlord’s policies permitted moving to another unit owned by the company, so they did.
Hutchinson, who is an analyst for the police department, wondered if a computer algorithm was behind building staff’s inflexibility. “It was pretty obvious they should have been dropping prices,” she said. “They were digging their heels in.”
Hutchinson said she watched apartments in her building sit vacant at prices that didn’t make sense to her.
“A normal mom-and-pop landlord, they’re worried about having a good tenant and protecting their interest in the agreement,” Hutchinson said. “These companies, they’ll just replace you.”
The Origins of YieldStar
One of YieldStar’s main architects was a business executive who had personal experience with an antitrust prosecution.
A genial, self-described “numbers nerd,” Jeffrey Roper was Alaska Airlines’ director of revenue management when it and other major airlines began developing price-setting software in the 1980s.
Competing airlines began using common software to share planned routes and prices with each other before they became public. The technology helped head off price wars that would have lowered ticket prices, the Department of Justice said.
The department said the arrangement may have artificially inflated airfares, estimating the cost to consumers at more than a billion dollars between 1988 and 1992. The government eventually reached settlements or consent decrees for price fixing with eight airlines, including Alaska Airlines, all of which agreed to change how they used the technology.
At one point, federal agents removed a computer and documents from Roper’s office at the airline. He said he and other creators of the software weren’t aware of the antitrust implications. “We all got called up before the Department of Justice in the early 1980s because we were colluding,” he said. “We had no idea.”
When Roper returned to the United States in the early 2000s after a stint in central and eastern Europe, he said, he discovered the apartment rental industry was so far behind technologically that it resembled the emerging markets he’d just left.
Apartment managers were “basically pricing their product on a paper napkin,” said Roper, who eventually formed his own company.
Old computers and manual recordkeeping were mainstays of the industry. Leasing agents gauged how their buildings compared by calling up competitors. “This was just a ripe business,” with lots of money and lots of opportunities for technological improvement, Roper said.
RealPage hired Roper as its principal scientist in 2004 to improve software it had bought from Camden Property Trust, a large investor-backed owner and manager of apartment buildings.
Roper quickly realized he required data — a lot of data — to get the algorithm working properly. He began building a “master data warehouse” that pulled in client data from other RealPage applications, such as those for leasing managers.
A proof-of-concept version of the software had performed well in tests at townhouses Camden offered for rent in its home city of Houston.
At the time, the street behind Camden’s townhouses was shut down while a grocery store was being built. Leasing staff wanted to discount rent for the townhouses because of the nuisance, said Kip Zacharias, who worked with Camden as a consultant.
Instead, YieldStar suggested boosting rents. “We were like, ‘Guys, just try it,’” Zacharias said.
The units ended up renting for significantly more than staff had expected, he said. “That was kind of the eureka moment,” Zacharias said. “If you’d listened to your gut, you would have lowered your price.”
The practice of lowering rent to fill a vacancy was a reflex for many in the apartment industry. Letting units sit empty could be costly and nerve-wracking for leasing agents.
Such agents sometimes hesitated to push rents higher. Roper said they were often peers of the people they were renting to. “We said there’s way too much empathy going on here,” he said. “This is one of the reasons we wanted to get pricing off-site.”
Unimpeded by human worries, YieldStar’s price increases sometimes led to more tenants leaving.
Camden’s turnover rates increased about 15 percentage points in 2006 after it implemented YieldStar, Campo, the company’s CEO, told a trade publication a few years later. But that wasn’t a problem for the firm: Despite having to replace more renters, its revenue grew by 7.4%.
“The net effect of driving revenue and pushing people out was $10 million in income,” Campo said. “I think that shows keeping the heads in the beds above all else is not always the best strategy.”
(Reminded of that quote, Campo told ProPublica it “sounds awful” and doesn’t reflect how he or Camden views renters today. “We fundamentally believe our customers are the most important part of our business,” he said. “We’re not about pushing people out.”)
Hiking rents at the same time benefited all landlords, the industry learned. “A rising tide lifts all boats,” one real estate executive and revenue management proponent told the industry publication Yield Pro in 2007.
One of the greatest threats to a landlord’s profit, according to Roper and other executives, was other firms setting rents too low at nearby properties. “If you have idiots undervaluing, it costs the whole system,” Roper said.
Jeffrey Roper helped develop YieldStar, which uses an algorithm to suggest prices for apartments across the country. Credit:Shelby Tauber for ProPublica
Roper wasn’t the only technologist working on an apartment pricing algorithm. Donald Davidoff, the primary developer of rival software called Lease Rent Options, or LRO, said he designed his program differently, to head off any concerns about collusion.
Instead of relying on a digital warehouse that includes competitor data, Davidoff used a complex formula and public market data to steer LRO’s algorithm. The system relied on incremental price shifts to manage demand for apartments, said Davidoff, an MIT-educated former rocket engineer. “That’s not dissimilar to changing a trajectory of a rocket through inflection of a nozzle,” he said — making small changes that can dramatically alter something’s course over time.
Davidoff said he was careful to avoid features that might run counter not only to anti-discrimination laws, such as the Fair Housing Act, but also those that bar competitors from conspiring to set prices.
“I had many conversations with attorneys to understand where the boundaries are,” he said. “Anybody who’s building one of these systems or is involved in these should care a lot about fair housing and should care a lot about price collusion to avoid both.”
Roper told ProPublica that when he was developing the YieldStar software more than a decade ago, he was concerned about avoiding both issues. He also said he didn’t want to misuse private data in pricing.
“I was highly sensitized to: You just don’t do it,” Roper said.
Despite differences in the software’s design, RealPage acquired LRO in 2017 after months of scrutiny by the antitrust division of the justice department. Federal regulators review mergers above a certain size — right now, it is transactions valued at $101 million — and typically allow them to proceed after only a preliminary review. But some are flagged for a more extensive look. The government can challenge a merger in court if it believes it could substantially harm competition.
RealPage’s purchase of LRO received such a second look, but the DOJ allowed it to proceed in late 2017. The department did not respond to requests for comment.
The approval allowed RealPage to acquire its only significant competitor, Roper said, adding, “I was surprised the DOJ let that go through.”
RealPage was pricing 1.5 million units, and the acquisition of LRO would double that, Steve Winn, RealPage’s then-CEO, said at a mid-2017 investor conference. “I don’t think there’s any concentration, enough concentration, of buying or pricing power here” to warrant DOJ concerns, he said. A third company had a substantial footprint in the market, Winn said, but property managers’ own manual pricing processes or proprietary systems were RealPage’s largest competitor.
“We expect our combined platform to drive accelerated, sustained revenue growth,” Winn said in a media release announcing the deal.
RealPage’s influence was burgeoning. That year, the firm’s target market — multifamily buildings with five or more units — made up about 19 million of the nation’s 45 million rental units. A growing share of those buildings were owned by firms backed by Wall Street investors, who were among the most eager adopters of pricing software.
RealPage renamed its combined pricing software AI Revenue Management. By the end of 2020, the firm was reporting in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing that its clients used its services and products to manage 19.7 million rental units of all types, including single-family homes. The private equity firm Thoma Bravo bought the public company a few months later for $10.2 billion.
Winn, whose net worth Forbes estimates at $1.7 billion, stepped aside. He did not respond to requests for comment.
A spokesperson for Thoma Bravo declined to comment.
Who Uses the Software and How It Works
Somewhere around 2016, according to one trade group, the industry’s use of the pricing software began to achieve “critical mass.”
The more property managers who sign on to RealPage services, the more data flows into the company’s repository. That in turn aids its pricing service, which the company says “leverages multifamily’s largest lease transaction database.”
RealPage’s clients include some of the largest property managers in the country. Many favor cities where rent has been rising rapidly, according to a ProPublica analysis of five of the country’s top 10 property managers as of 2020. All five use RealPage pricing software in at least some buildings, and together they control thousands of apartments in metro areas such as Denver, Nashville, Atlanta and Seattle, where rents for a typical two-bedroom apartment rose 30% or more between 2014 and 2019.
Greystar and FPI Management each control hundreds of buildings in metro areas where rents have risen steeply in recent years. And Equity Residential, Lincoln Property Company and Mid-America Apartment Communities each manage dozens of buildings in high-growth markets.
In contrast, these same companies control fewer buildings in metro areas such as Philadelphia, Tampa and Chicago, where rents have increased more slowly, the analysis found.[much more, see bak]
6 23 socmedia
an 6 23
no lnx
canada’s Parliament recently passed Bill C-18, the Online News Act, which would require social media platforms to pay news organizations for posted articles. In response, Meta announced that it was going to ban article sharing in Canada rather than pay up.
The Online News Act received Royal Assent on Thursday, meaning it’s all set to become law after Parliament passed it. The law is expected to go into effect in six months. The Canadian government says that the bill asks social media companies to “bargain fairly with Canadian news businesses” for having their articles posted.
“[The Online News Act] levels the playing field by putting the power of big tech in check and ensuring that even our smallest news business can benefit through this regime and receive fair compensation for their work,” Pablo Rodriguez, Minister of Canadian Heritage, said in a statement.
READ MORE: Facebook’s Zuckerberg Won’t Ban Holocaust Deniers Because He Thinks They Don’t ‘Intentionally’ Get Facts Wrong
The government says social media outlets are getting a clear benefit from users sharing articles. The companies not only sell advertising that appears near the articles, but sharing stories also boosts engagement and the value of the platform to users. In addition, the platforms can find out more about their users based on the type of stories they click on, obtaining their data for targeted advertising. With the Online News Act,smaller outlets are allowed the opportunity for collective bargaining with the tech giants.
Meta, the company that owns Facebook and Instagram, responded by saying Canadian news stories wouldn’t be available to Canadians on its platforms.
“The changes affecting news content will not otherwise impact Meta’s products and services in Canada. We want to assure the millions of Canadians on our platforms that they will always be able to connect with friends and family, grow their businesses and support their local communities,” Meta said in a statement.
Meta threatened to do this earlier this month, and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau panned the company, according to the CBC.
:{
}:
“The fact that these internet giants would rather cut off Canadians’ access to local news than pay their fair share is a real problem, and now they’re resorting to bullying tactics to try and get their way. It’s not going to work,” Trudeau said.
Meta is not the only outlet to consider such a drastic action. Google has suggested on Thursday it may do something similar, the CBC reported.....
fight over GMO IP?!
an 822
A fledgling international effort to protect the world's oceans from further damage is "on the brink of failure," and the governments of wealthy countries are primarily to blame, Greenpeace International warned Thursday.
Diplomats gathered at the United Nations headquarters in New York City are nearing the end of the fifth and final round of negotiations on a much-needed pact to protect biodiversity in the "high seas"—a global commons comprising the two-thirds of the ocean that lie outside the jurisdiction of any single country and where legally binding regulations are virtually nonexistent.
Conservationists have long hoped that the ongoing summit—described by some as the "last chance" to forge a robust global ocean treaty—would lead to the establishment of "Marine Protected Areas" and rules mandating environmental assessments prior to deep-sea mining and other industrial activities.
But a handful of mostly rich countries—including the United States, Canada, and members of the so-called High Ambition Coalition on Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction—have derailed progress made on the text byprioritizing "hypothetical future profits" that could bederived from extracting marine genetic resourcesover protecting aquatic species, according to Greenpeace.
"The oceans sustain all life on Earth, but the greed of a few countries means this round of talks for a U.N. ocean treaty are now set to fail," Laura Meller of Greenpeace's Protect the Oceans campaign said Thursday in a statement. "The High Ambition Coalition has utterly failed. They should be the No Ambition Coalition."
Members of the coalition have "obsessed over their hypothetical future profits, undermining all the other progress made at these talks," said Meller. "Unless ministers urgently pick up the phone today to their counterparts and hammer out a deal, this treaty process will fail."
The health of the world's oceans, which cover roughly 70% of the Earth and are indispensible to life on the planet, has been rapidly deteriorating as a result of unmitigated greenhouse gas emissions, surging plastic pollution, and overexploitation.
The high ambition coalition pledged earlier this year to finalize a treaty in 2022 that would protect 30% of the world's oceans by 2030, but the proposed text is "lowering its ambition by the minute," said Greenpeace.
"Less than two months ago I was in Lisbon, at the U.N. Ocean Conference, listening to these leaders promise they would deliver a strong global ocean treaty this year," said Meller. "Now we are in New York and the leaders are nowhere to be found. They've broken their promises."
"We are sad and angry," Meller continued. "Billions of people rely on healthy oceans, and world leaders have failed all of them."
"It now looks like protecting 30% of the world's oceans [by 2030] will be impossible," she added. "Scientists say this is the absolute minimum necessary to protect the oceans, and failure at these talks will jeopardize the livelihoods and food security of billions. We're beyond disappointed."
Greenpeace also accused rich nations of taking "an unfair and neocolonial approach by refusing to commit any finance for the benefit of all countries."
The refusal of the U.S., Canada, and others to provide funding "will stop a treaty from being agreed here," the group added. "With talks set to fail, countries must now take urgent action, show flexibility, and find compromise to deliver a strong treaty text" by Friday.
==
aha 6 22
i had not fully connected financialization and extraction
funny how milton provides holy rationale for greedy theft see yass thesis
i had sorta hoped pandemic trump had forever banished libtard BS
https://www.alternet.org/2022/06/billionaire-tax/
Inside the Tax Records of the .001%
One day in July 1985, three young men from Philadelphia, their lawyer and a burly Pinkerton guard arrived at a horse track outside Chicago carrying a briefcase with $250,000 in cash.
Running the numbers on a Compaq computer the size of a small refrigerator, Jeffrey Yass and his friends had found a way to outwit the track’s bookies, according to interviews, records and news accounts. A few months earlier, they’d wagered $160,000, gambling that, with tens of thousands of bets, they could nail the exact order of seven horses in three different races. It was a sophisticated theory of theracing odds, honed with help from a Ph.D. statistician who’d worked for NASA on the moon landing, and it proved right. They bagged $760,000, then the richest payoff in American racing history.
But that summer day, when they presented their strikingly long list of bets at the track window, they were turned away. Their appeal to the track owner got them ejected. Yass, just 27, then sued for the right to place the bets. The track’s lawyer fumed to a federal judge that the men were trying to corner the betting market “through the use of their statistics and numbers.”
Yass lost, but that year he and his friends repeated variations of the strategy at horse and greyhound tracks around the country. Then they decided to turn their focus from a world of hundreds of thousands of dollars to a world of billions: Wall Street.
Four decades later, the firm he and his friends founded, Susquehanna International Group, is a sprawling global company that makes billions of dollars. Yass and his team used their numerical expertise to make rapid-fire computer-driven trades in options and other securities, eventually becoming a giant middleman in the markets for stocks and other securities. If you have bought stock or options on an app like Robinhood or E-Trade, there’s a good chance you traded with Susquehanna without knowing it. Today, Yass, 63, is one of the richest and most powerful financiers in the country.
But one crucial aspect of his ascent to stratospheric wealth has transpired out of public view. Using the same prowess that he’s applied to race tracks and options markets, Yass has taken aim at another target: his tax bill.
There, too, the winnings have been immense: at least $1 billion in tax savings over six recent years, according to ProPublica’s analysis of a trove of IRS data. During that time, Yass paid an average federal income tax rate of just 19%, far below that of comparable Wall Street traders.
Yass has devised trading strategies that reduce his tax burden but push legal boundaries. He has repeatedly drawn IRS audits, yet has continued to test the limits. Susquehanna has often gone to court to fight the government, with one multiyear audit battle ending in a costly defeat. The firm has maintained in court filings that it complied with the law.
Yass’ low rate is particularly notable because Susquehanna, by its own description, specializes in short-term trading. Money made from such rapid trades is typically taxed at rates around 40%.
In recent years, however, Yass’ annual income has, with uncanny consistency, been made up almost entirely of income taxed at the roughly 20% rate reserved for longer-term investments.
Congress long ago tried to stamp out widely used techniques that seek to transform profits taxed at the high rate into profits taxed at the low rate. But Yass and his colleagues have managed to avoid higher taxes anyway.
The tax savings have contributed to an explosion in wealth for Yass, who has increasingly poured that fortune into candidates and causes on the political right. He has spent more than $100 million on election campaigns in recent years. The money has gone to everything from anti-tax advocacy and charter schools to campaigns against so-called critical race theory and for candidates who falsely say the 2020 election was stolen and seek to ban abortion.
ProPublica has pieced together the details of Yass’ tax avoidance using tax returns, securities filings and court records, as well as by talking to former traders and executives. (The former employees spoke on condition of anonymity, with many citing a desire to avoid angering Yass.)
Through a spokesperson, Yass declined to be interviewed for this article. The spokesperson declined to comment in response to a long list of questions for Susquehanna and the firm’s founding partners.
Gregg Polsky, a University of Georgia law professor and former corporate tax lawyer who was retained by ProPublica to review Susquehanna’s tax records, said the tax agency may have more to scrutinize. The strategies revealed in Yass’ records, he said, were “very suspicious and suggestive of potential abuse that should be examined by the IRS.”
More than 35 years after he was booted from the racetrack outside Chicago, Yass still lives to gamble. Not just on horses, but on poker and on the market. He sheepishly admitted, in a podcast discussion, that he has even placed wagers on his children’s sports games.
Asked to describe his approach to trading at Susquehanna, Yass once reached for a poker analogy. “If you’re the sixth-best poker player in the world and you play with the five best players, you’re going to lose,” he said. “If your skills are only average, but you play against weak opponents, you’re going to win.”
That philosophy along with, Yass freely admits, a lot of luck, has made him a billionaire many times over.
Compared to many of his fellow billionaires — he’s richer than Hollywood mogul David Geffen, retail brokerage king Charles Schwab and “Star Wars” creator George Lucas — Yass doesn't seem particularly interested in the trappings of extreme wealth.
Yass and his wife, Janine, raised four children in the leafy college town of Haverford, on the Main Line outside of Philadelphia. Their large but unremarkable house could easily be the home of a successful doctor rather than one of the richest men in the country. In his quarter-zip pullover sweater, Nikes and no-nonsense rimless glasses, he’d be impossible to pick out of a crowd at the suburban country club where he plays golf.
If Yass collects expensive art or maintains a megayacht, he has managed to do so in complete secrecy. What comes closest to an identifiable trophy asset is a house in the ultra-exclusive Georgica Association beach neighborhood of East Hampton on New York’s Long Island. Even that property, purchased for $12.5 million in 2005 and held through an LLC, is in an area known as “bucolic and understated.”
Those who have worked with Yass say he lives less for spending money than for the competition of the market and the thrill of taking calculated risk. Yass softens any impression of ruthlessness by deploying a practiced humility and comedic timing. “Some people like art history,” he once explained, “I like probabilistic analysis.”
Yet when it comes to his philosophical outlook, he eschews the jokes. He speaks of capitalism in religious terms. Making new markets, he likes to say, is a “mission from God.”
Like many religious stories, his begins with a conversion experience.Born in 1958 to two Queens CPAs, Yass said reading the economist Milton Friedman’s “Capitalism and Freedom” as a young man delivered him from an early flirtation with socialism.
By the time Yass graduated from the State University of New York at Binghamton in 1979, he was already captivated by trading. (His father had also helped nurture Yass’ love of horse racing by taking him to local tracks to see harness racing, according to Forbes.) Yass’ college thesis weighed whether the budding market in stock options could be justified as socially useful. “I concluded that it should exist,” Yass later cracked. “I got a B.”
After college, he moved to Las Vegas for a year and a half to play poker professionally. Then he returned to the East Coast and settled in Philadelphia, where he began trading options. The previous decade had seen aburst of academic interest in the financial instruments, including a pioneering model of how to more accurately price them.Yass later called the model, and its broader implications for how to make mathematically sound decisions, “the most revolutionary idea in a long, long time.”
A share of stock is a relatively simple concept: It’s a small ownership stake in a company. An option, by contrast, is a contract that confers the right to buy or sell a given stock at a particular price and time in the future.
Options attract mathematically minded traders since a complex set of variables, including the underlying stock price, volatility, time and interest rates, determine how much one of the contracts is worth.
Options are a versatile tool. They can appeal to the risk-averse:Traders can use them as insurance to guarantee they will be paid at least today’s price when they sell in the future. They are also useful to the risk-embracing — gamblers who want to place outsized bets on how a stock will perform. (Here’s how a speculator would use an option: In early June, shares of Netflix were trading at below $200. If the speculator thinks the company’s fortunes will improve dramatically this summer, they could pay just $4.50 each for options to buy the stock at $250 in mid-August. If the stock soars over that figure, they could make a mint.)
In options Yass found more than a finan...
==
LBO
Along with pouring money into activities that heat the planet, “Kravis and KKR have no qualms about pillaging companies or investing in unethical products in order to turn a profit,” the analysis adds, noting that “the firm helped oversee the notorious raid of Toys ‘R’ Us that devastated the company’s workers.”
Responding to the report, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) — a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs — tied its findings to criticism of the private equity industry’s broader practices.
ilan ziv adam smith says caplism won't work if rentiers [aka ayn rand producers/ job creators?]
aha surveil = extraction eg mar a lago perlmutter VA vet data
aha cf moral aspects of debt in graeber ilan ziv caplism
prison is state of exception, pioneeer loss of privacy/surveillance
:{
}:
random intercept grab 921
FEDERAL PRISONS’ SWITCH TO SCANNING MAIL IS A SURVEILLANCE NIGHTMARE
Lauren Gill
https://truthout.org/articles/capitalisms-bullets-in-latin-america-invisible-empires-state-power-and-21st-century-colonialism/
no lnx
Capitalism’s Bullets in Latin America: Invisible Empires, State Power and 21st Century Colonialism
BY Benjamin Dangl, Upside Down World
June 21,2014
Police open fire on protestors blocking road in Bagua Grande, Peru. June 5, 2009. (Image: powless / Flickr)]
Updated 6/17/14
“Soccer, metaphor for war, at times turns into real war,” wrote Uruguayan author Eduardo Galeano. For many people in Brazil, a war has indeed broken out surrounding the current World Cup. Poor communities have been displaced by stadiums and related infrastructure for the event, the high level of security has increased police violence, and the enormous economic costs of the World Cup are seen by many as a blow against the rights of the country’s most impoverished people. As a result of these controversies, the international sports event has been met with wide-spread protests.
Cracking down on some of these protests are Brazilian security forces trained by the US private military and security company Academic, previously known as Blackwater. This training was brought to light by the Brazilian press and US sportswriter David Zirin, who, in an article on the topic, pointed to a 2009 diplomatic cable released by Wikileaks, which showed that Washington anticipated the World Cup-related crises in Brazil would provide opportunities for various types of US involvement. Zirin wrote that for Washington, “Brazil’s misery created room for opportunism.”
Capitalism’s bullets follow the World Cup just as they do Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) signed with the US. Five years ago this month, protests were raging in northern Peru where thousands of indigenous Awajun and Wambis men, women and children were blockading roads against oil, logging and gas exploitation on Amazonian land. The Peruvian government, having just signed an FTA with the US, was unsure how to deal with the protests – partly because the controversial concessions in the Amazon were granted to meet the FTA requirements. According to a diplomatic cable released by Wikileaks, on June 1st, 2009 the US State Department sent a message to the US Embassy in Lima: “Should Congress and [Peruvian] President Garcia give in to the [protesters’] pressure, there would be implications for the recently implemented Peru-US Free Trade Agreement.” Four days later, the Peruvian government responded to the protest with deadly violence, leading to a conflict which left 34 dead, including 24 police officers and 10 civilians. The US-supported escalation of the conflict worked; the FTA moved forward as planned.
The US is infamous for its imperial history in the region. But Washington isn’t the only empire in its backyard. Global and local forces of capitalism, imperialism and modern-day colonialism are at work across Latin America, from soccer stadiums to copper mines.
China has outpaced the US as the primary trading partner with the region’s richest countries; most of its business is in the area of natural resource extraction. And for many nations in the southern cone, Brazil – now a world superpower outpacing Britain as the 6th largest economy – is an imperial force, utilizing much of the region’s natural wealth, land and hydroelectric power to fuel its booming industries and population.
Capitalism has many faces and allies, and they’re not just based in the global north or within these economic giants. As sociologist William Robinson writes “The new face of global capitalism in Latin America is driven as much by local capitalist classes that have sought integration into the ranks of the transnational capitalist class as by transnational corporate and financial capital.” From Mexico to Argentina, this local capitalist class has created some 70 globally-competitive transnational conglomerates.
Friends of empire and capital are found at the heights of power among Latin America’s political leaders. While the US has spied on Latin America for years, as recently made clear by Edward Snowden’s leaks, Chile’s Michelle Bachelet administration asked for the US government’s help in spying on Mapuche indigenous leaders defending land rights during her first term in office. While the US supported the coup against Fernando Lugo of Paraguay in 2012, before he was pushed out of office, Lugo himself called for a state of emergency in the countryside to expand repression of campesino activists fighting soy company incursions on their land.
For many indigenous communities in Latin America, the state, often in alliance with transnational corporations, maintains a colonialist worldview into the 21st century, particularly in the area of natural resource extraction in mining, oil and gas industries. As Professor Manuela Picq of the Universidad San Francisco de Quito in Ecuador writes, “The unilateral expropriation of land for mining today is a continuation of the Doctrine of Discovery. It conceptualized the New World as terra nullis, authorizing colonial powers to conquer and exploit land in the Americas. […] Today, the idea of ’empty’ lands survives in extractivist practices.”
Indeed, mining concessions have been granted on 80% of Colombia’s legally-recognized indigenous territories, and 407,000 square kilometers of Amazon-based mining areas are on indigenous land. As a part of this region-wideextractivist land grab, Picq explains that 200 activists were killed in Peru between 2006 and 2011, 200 people were criminalized in Ecuador for protesting the privatization of natural resources, and 11 anti-extractivist activists have been murdered in Argentina since 2010.
The mining industry is also typically devastating for the environment, whether it’s run by the state or the private sector. Picq points out that Guatemala’s Marlin mine, owned by theCanadian company Goldcorp, utilizes in just one hour the same amount of water a local family uses over the span of 22 years, and the mining industry in Chile – where the state owns the largest copper producing company in the world – utilizes 37% of the nation’s electricity.
Capitalism, empire and 21st century colonialism come from afar and descend on their victims in Latin America. But these forces are also in the tear gas canisters that Brazil’s security forces use at the World Cup, in the state that extracts natural resources on indigenous territory, and in the free trade deals signed in blood.
aha 221: wage theft, not just farmworkers or indic rest mgr: amazon and other bigs corps do it, algo?max profit /extract built into corp DNA
// gig economy? stole tips for wages; bezos steps down/sideways?
https://www.alternet.org/2021/02/amazon-wage-theft/
capitalism built on myth/story /schema of spot transaction/barter, not found in real world?
aha: trump is just apotheosis: invis hand me vs we short vs long term: $ = winner, vs losers who deserve poverty, corruption/crony capitalism is natural inevitable outcome
// metaphor; immune sys digestive sys goes on overdrive?
aha: reduction = retaliation = transaction [extraction is just a more extreme form where other has no power] INEQUALITY
terministic screen/tunnel vision limits to small number of visible things right here and now self-ish vs larger complex system/ long term; also zero sum
long term means more entities, more events thus more complexity (tho a story can simplify/screen/ change emphasis, make a pattern (even where none exists, eg qanon) thus meaning, which then acts as term screen filter to repell conflicting/anomalous/dissonance info ); but fills vacuum need, that previously would have been filled by experts/textbooks/teachers/leaders/pastors?
aha: reduction = retaliation = transaction
terministic screen/tunnel vision limits to small number of visible things right here and now vs larger complex system/ long term
https://www.alternet.org/2020/09/americas-enemies-perceive-weakness-in-donald-trump-foreign-policy-expert-explains-how-the-president-squandered-us-exceptionalism/
no lnx audio
c de v
https://www.alternet.org/2020/10/debt-collectors-have-made-a-fortune-this-year-now-theyre-coming-for-more/
Earlier this year, the pandemic swept across the country, killing 100,000 Americans by the spring, shuttering businesses and schools, and forcing people into their homes. It was a great time to be a debt collector.
In August, Encore Capital, the largest debt buyer in the country, announced that it had doubled its previous record for earnings in a quarter. It primarily had the CARES Act to thank: The bill delivered hundreds of billions of dollars worth of stimulus checks and bulked-up unemployment benefits to Americans, while easing pressures on them by halting foreclosures, evictions and student loan payments. There was no ban on collections of old credit card bills, Encore's specialty.
At the same time, the pandemic compelled households to cut spending. Finding themselves with enough money to settle old debts, people responded to collectors' calls and letters. Debt-buying executives couldn't help marveling at their good fortune. All this created “a perfect storm from a cash perspective," the CEO of Portfolio Recovery Associates, Encore's main competitor, told Wall Street analysts.
After its record second quarter, analysts expect Encore to blow past $200 million in profit this year and reward stockholders with 40% earnings growth compared with last year. Portfolio Recovery is set for similar growth. The share prices of both have soared off their early April lows.
Investors didn't even show much concern when, in early September, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau sued Encore, saying that it had broken the terms of a consent agreement struck in 2015.**:{The agency had previously charged the company with “pressuring consumers with false statements and churning out lawsuits using robo-signed court documents," as it :(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}::{:(style="background-color:#ffffff;;transition-property:color, background, opacity"):}:**:{said at the time. (In :(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}:a statement, Encore said the CFPB's recent suit was unnecessary because it had fixed the alleged problems “years ago.")
In recent months, the only real bad news for debt buyers was that local courts across the country temporarily shut down. Debt collection lawsuits provide a key source of revenue for the companies, a way to extract payment from consumers, typically low-income, who don't offer it up.
But now even that hiccup is over. After a bit of a lull in the spring, Encore and other debt buyers are back at it, filing suits by the thousands every week, according to ProPublica's analysis of state court filings.
In August alone, Encore filed about 1,000 suits in Indiana and over 2,000 suits in the metro Atlanta area. Other debt buyers jumped back in as well. In Chicago, Portfolio Recovery filed over 3,000 suits in July, while LVNV, a major debt buyer privately owned by Sherman Financial Group, filed over 2,700 suits in Maryland in August. For all these companies, ProPublica found, thevolume was well above the number they'd filed before the coronavirus arrived, in January or February of this year. No national numbers on suits exist.
In statements, the companies said they have been actively working with consumers during the COVID-19 pandemic and only sue as a last resort on a small portion of accounts.
Elizabeth A. Kersey, a spokesperson for Portfolio Recovery, said the company's hardship program “allows for the suspension of collection efforts for ninety (90) days upon notification of a hardship event." The company is currently not seeking new orders to seize debtors' wages or bank account funds, she said.
Ryan Bell, an Encore executive, said, “We have consistently and proactively communicated to consumers the various relief options we've put in place in response to COVID-19, including temporarily stopping collections." The company said it had stopped seeking orders to garnish bank accounts. It is, however, seizing wages.
Sherman Financial did not respond to requests for comment.
If Congress is unable to pass any further stimulus , unemployment is likely to remain high. In that scenario, debt buying companies and the banks that sell defaulted accounts to them expect more Americans to fall behind on their credit card bills over the coming months.
Even that scenario turns out to be rosy for the debt buyers. While good times can mean that Encore collects on more debt than it expected, bad times typically bring a glut of people suffering under loans they cannot repay. The result is that Encore can scoop up the raw materials for its profit machine — defaulted accounts — more cheaply. Or as Encore CEO Ashish Masih put it to Wall Street: The company is “particularly excited about the prospects for increased supply in the future."
“The same giant debt buyers known for fighting consumer protection laws at every turn have been raking in cash during this pandemic," Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass, told ProPublica. “They are now licking their chops in anticipation of profiting even more off families who have their hours further cut or can't find a job, and can't keep up with their bills or their mortgage. This is disgraceful and reinforces the need for Congress to protect consumers and small businesses from this predatory behavior."
In recent years, Encore has bought around 2 million to 3 million U.S. accounts per year, according to public filings. Last year, on average, the company paid 8.6 cents on the dollar for each account. For a typical debt of $3,142, Encore paid $271.
To earn a profit on that investment, Encore and other debt buyers pursue debtors in near perpetuity. Encore is still collecting tens of millions of dollars each year from debts it bought in 2009 or earlier. The key to that persistence is the courts.
Since the early 2000s, debt buyers have flooded local courts nationwide with suits. The companies regularly account for more than a quarter of all debt collection cases in a given jurisdiction, according to ProPublica's review of collection filings over several states.
That disproportionate presence has been particularly apparent in recent months, as the banks themselves have mostly opted to suspend filing new suits. In normal times, Capital One files far more lawsuits than other banks, in numbers similar to those filed by Encore and Portfolio Recovery. But since March, although Capital One continued to seize pay via garnishments secured before COVID-19 struck, it has largely stopped filing new suits.
ProPublica did find one exception among the major banks that commonly file a significant number of suits: Citigroup, which resumed filing suits at its normal levels in July. The bank, for instance, filed over 200 suits in Oklahoma in August, more than it had filed there in January and February combined.
In a statement, Citi spokesperson Jennifer Bombardier said the bank has a special assistance program for customers impacted by COVID-19 and that it is not seeking to garnish the bank accounts of customers it has sued. The bank also did not sell charged-off accounts to debt buyers “for up to 120 days" in the states “most impacted by COVID-19," she said.
Encore sued Nicole Campbell of Brooklyn, New York, in July. Her first task was to figure out what to do. The suit was over $3,023.76 in debt she incurred years ago with CareCredit, a card offered by Synchrony Bank to people who need to cover medical costs, such as dentistry and eyecare. She knew she should answer the complaint by going to the courthouse, but she was wary of going there during the pandemic and wasn't even sure whether it was open.
Even attorneys have difficulty finding their way.“Courts have been returning to full operation, but there's so much confusion as to what's happening," said Susan Shin, legal director of the New Economy Project in New York City. “It's hard to know what to advise people on what to do with their case."
With help from an attorney with the New Economy Project, Campbell responded to the suit by mail. She's not sure what to expect next but said she doesn't have much time to worry about it. She cares for three boys, 5, 11 and 14, on her own and has to figure out how to get them to school on the city's part-time schedule while helping them with online lessons when they're home. She juggles this with her own job as a customer service rep: That also has a rotating, part-time schedule in order to minimize the number of people in the office.
“It's crazy to me they're filing all this during this time when there's so much going on," she said.
Such collection suits are most common among workers with income under $40,000 per year and particularly common in mostly Black neighborhoods. The suits routinely result in judgments, which in turn usually result in attempts at garnishment,according to a ProPublica analysis of Missouri court filings. Past studies have put the number of workers who have their wages garnished each year at around 4 million. In most states, plaintiffs can seize up to a quarter of a worker's take-home pay or clean out their bank account.
In recent years, when state legislatures have moved to protect more funds from garnishment, Encore has been there to oppose the measures. In 2018, a Connecticut bill proposed to automatically protect up to $1,000 in a bank account. An Encore executive, Sonia Gibson, argued against it, writing in a letter, “Since the average amount we collect through bank garnishments is typically around $700, an automatic exemption of $1,000 would leave us unable to use bank garnishments." The bill died.
Last year in California, Encore joined with other debt buyers to combat a similar bill that aimed to protect around $1,700.
“It was a really huge fight," said Ted Mermin, head of the California Low-Income Consumer Coalition and a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. “And you've got to think, 'Why?' Who on earth thinks it's a good idea to take someone's last dollar? The only people who would do this are debt collectors who have no ongoing relationship with someone." The bill narrowly passed and became law.
In Washington state, lawmakers last year sought to protect more workers from wage garnishment. Under federal law, earnings above $217.50 in a week are eligible to be seized, a level that has remained the same since 2009 because it's tied to the $7.25 federal minimum wage. The Washington bill, which ultimately passed, aimed to tie the exemption to the state's much higher minimum wage, which this year is $13.50 an hour. In 2020, about $472.50 in weekly take-home pay would be protected. That wasmuch too high for Encore. Gibson argued in a letter that people earning that much shouldn't be “completely exempt from garnishment."
As an alternative to automatic protections, Encore generally argues that consumers should have to file exemptions in court to demonstrate they really can't afford to have their money taken.Consumer advocates say that such exemptions, which often exist in state laws, are rarely invoked by debtors because they either don't know about them or don't understand the process.
On paper, Randall Ward would seem to be well-insulated from garnishment. He lives in the small town of Marianna, Florida, and state law protects the wages of anyone deemed the “head of household," which is defined as someone who earns more than half the household's income and has dependents. Since Ward helps care for his 20-year-old son with Down syndrome and a granddaughter, his pay from his job as a manager at a Waffle House is eligible for protection.
But when Encore, after having won a judgment against Ward the previous year, sought to garnish his wages this past February, Ward didn't understand that he qualified for the “head of household" exemption. So, starting in March, Encore began taking a quarter of Ward's take-home pay. The size of the debt, a Citibank card that had ballooned to $5,220 with interest and court costs, meant that Ward, even with what he's proud to call a “good job," was in for many lean months.
The only way to make ends meet, he said, was to cancel health insurance for himself, his son and his wife, “because I could not pay the bills if I didn't do it."
Then the virus forced his restaurant to close for several weeks and his pay stopped altogether. The family was without income as he waited for his unemployment claim to go through. When, finally, he could go back to work, the garnishments returned. Encore has said in public statements that it looks to work with consumers, especially those who've been impacted by COVID-19. Ward said that was not his experience.
“They're just ruthless about it," he said. “I would hate to see that happen to anybody."
Encore declined to comment on individual accounts.
Collection suits can have a lasting negative effect on consumers. A recent study by economists from Dartmouth's Tuck School of Business and the University of California, San Diego, focused on debtors who, after being sued, agreed to pay in order to avoid garnishment. The settlements left consumers worse off: They were more likely to fall behind on other debts or end up in foreclosure or bankruptcy, the study found. The main reason was that paying up on one debt had drained those consumers' cash buffer and that left them vulnerable to falling behind on others.
Even in good economic times, low-income consumers live on the edge, so the CARES Act aid was particularly helpful to them. According to a Federal Reserve survey, the temporary $600 boost to weekly unemployment insurance benefits actually resulted in higher pay for about 40% of those who received them. On top of that came the $1,200 stimulus checks ($2,400 for married couples) with an additional $500 for each child.
In July, the Fed found households with income under $40,000 a year had significantly more savings than normal: Whereas last year just 39% said they would have covered an unexpected $400 expense with cash, this summer, 48% said they would.
Debt collectors were a clear beneficiary of those extra funds. According to a survey by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, while most people used the stimulus payments to buy food and other essentials, about 25% used at least some of the money to pay down debts.
But Felipe Severino, a Tuck School of Business professor and one of the authors of the paper on debt collection settlements, said there may be negative long-term consequences for households who used the extra money to settle older debts. The companies say they do not charge interest on the old, charged-off debts they collect so the debts are not growing.
“I would argue it's not a very good use of their money," he said. With less of a safety net, those households are more likely to find themselves behind on their bills again.
Furthermore, he said, stimulative government aid like the CARES Act is meant to be “spent and magnify across the economy" in the near term by, for instance, leading to increased purchases at local businesses. That doesn't happen when the money goes to debt collectors.
The flood of government aid, along with the sudden contraction in spending due to COVID-19, has led to an unpredictable economy, one where unemployment has shot up without the usual tide of delinquencies, bankruptcies and foreclosures. But now, banks are predicting that tide to finally arrive in the coming months.
In July, Capital One reported a loss for the quarter despite delinquencies actually going down. The reason was the bank set aside $2.9 billion as a provision for future credit losses, a kind of safety net for the future.
Encore did not appear to need such precautions. “Our liquidity puts us in a strong position to capture the substantial purchasing opportunity, which we believe is sure to follow," Masih, the CEO, told analysts.
https://www.alternet.org/2020/09/a-cruel-experiment-how-46-million-people-were-trapped-by-student-debt
The democratic principle of tuition-free education in our country pre-dates the founding of the United States. The first public primary education was offered in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1635, and its legislature created Harvard College the following year to make education available to all qualified students. Even before the Constitution was ratified, the Confederation Congress enacted the Land Ordinance of 1785, which required newly established townships in territories ceded by the British to devote a section of land for a public school. It also passed the Northwest Ordinances, which set out the guidelines for how the territories could become states. Among those guidelines was a requirement to establish public universities and a stipulation that “the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” After the nation declared independence, Thomas Jefferson argued for a formal education system funded through government taxation.
Jefferson’s vision took form over the course of more than a century, as state and local governments began creating primary schools and then high schools. The federal government became involved in higher education in the 19th century with the creation of land grant colleges and other institutions, used primarily to teach agriculture and education after the Civil War. These institutions created opportunities for people who had long been locked out of the learning process, including formerly enslaved African Americans and impoverished people of all races.
State universities and colleges rapidly expanded as well. By the middle of the 20th century, low-cost or tuition-free education was available in many American states. After the Second World War, the federal government once again turned to education to promote opportunities for its citizens and economic growth for all. The G.I. Bill paid educational expenses for 8 million people, without regard to individual wealth, which helped create a robust middle class and contributed to the vibrant growth economy of the 1950s and 1960s. While those opportunities were still denied to many people as the result of racism, efforts were underway to improve educational access for people of color.
The Reagan era ushered in a belief that government programs, including education, stood in the way of people’s dreams and should be severely cut back. Public goods came to be seen as investments, ones that were purely economic in nature. For these reasons, among others, a nation that had expanded publicly funded education for centuries decided to reverse course. Instead of funding higher education on the principle that it benefits us all, the country began shifting the cost to individual students. in the 1950s, as part of the National Defense Education Act, student loans were created as an experiment in social engineering. Concerned about competition with the Soviet Union, policymakers wanted to increase students’ capabilities in math and sciences. To do that, the country needed more teachers. So, lawmakers offered loans to college students, with the opportunity to have half the loan canceled after 10 years if they became teachers.
The experiment failed. Researchers have not been able to prove that the student loan program led more people to become teachers, despite multiple attempts to do so. The experiment was also cruel. Over the years, the student loan program was expanded, with the claim that a student’s personal investment in their education was an “investment” that would pay off in higher wages. Banks and other private lenders were brought into the process and given considerable incentives and subsidies to issue student loans, without considering the burden being imposed on the student. This financial opportunity was given to banking interests that were already wealthy, with little thought of the resulting damage to an economically sustainable future.
Proponents of financializing the cost of higher education argued that it was cheaper to lend money to students than it was for federal and state governments to provide grants for their education, even after paying subsidies to the private sector for their loans. An entire industry grew up around this process. State and nonprofit guaranty agencies were created to insure the loans. These agencies got paid, no matter what: when loans were issued, when loans became delinquent, when borrowers defaulted, and when they collected on defaulted loans.
In response, most states created guaranty agencies so they could make money from people who needed to borrow to pay for ever-increasing tuitions and fees.Now, states had an extra incentive to cut funding for public higher education. Not only would they save on expenditures, but they could increase the need for students to borrow, which increased their revenue. In many cases, these guaranty agencies don’t handle the loans themselves.They pass the work on to private debt collectors who take collection fees and are aggressive in their handling of cases.
The system took on a life of its own. By the mid-1990s, student loans had surpassed grants in funding students’ higher education. But a system built on debt financing only works if borrowers pay back their loans. That led Congress to make the system even crueler with the Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984, which exempted student loans from bankruptcy proceedings and subjected borrowers to draconian collection tools. These tools included wage garnishment without a court order and the seizure of Social Security checks and tax refunds. The Clinton and Obama administrations attempted to lessen the burden slightly by allowing the federal government to lend directly to students while introducing income-based repayment options, but the system’s fundamental cruelty remains unchanged today.
It is time to recognize that the cruel experiment in financing higher education through student loans has failed. It has captured 46 million people and their families in a student loan trap, including people who received vocational training, and has weakened the financial strength of higher education. Inescapable debt is a major driver of social collapse. It has made the racial wealth gap worse and weakened the entire economy, as debt holders are prevented from buying homes or consumer goods, starting families, or opening new businesses. It’s time to restore funds for higher education and cancel student debt for the victims of this failed experiment.
Learn more at Freedom to Prosper.
Mary Green Swig is a senior fellow at the Advanced Leadership Initiative at Harvard University and co-founder of Freedom to Prosper.
Steven L. Swig is a senior fellow at the Advanced Leadership Initiative at Harvard University and co-founder of Freedom to Prosper.
David A. Bergeron is a senior fellow for postsecondary education at the Center for American Progress. Bergeron previously served as the acting assistant secretary for postsecondary education at the U.S. Department of Education.
Richard “RJ” Eskow is senior adviser for health and economic justice at Social Security Works. He is also the host of The Zero Hour, a syndicated progressive radio and television program.
This article was produced by :{Economy for All:(style="box-sizing:border-box;outline:none;margin:0px;padding:0px"):}:, a project of the Independent Media Institute.
==
aha 820 covid accelerate and amplify inequality, oligarchy (hedge and pvt equity) rent-seeking disaster capitalism housing // gt recession; presumably big spender dark $ in 2020 election, but who?
https://www.alternet.org/2020/08/elizabeth-warren-sounds-the-alarm-on-a-mounting-housing-crisis-and-the-profiteers-who-will-take-advantage/
During her 2020 presidential primary campaign, Sen. Elizabeth Warren had a lot to say about the United States’ housing crisis — and after suspending her campaign and endorsing former Vice President Joe Biden (now the presumptive Democratic nominee), the Massachusetts senator continued to address the subject. Warren, in an op-ed she wrote for the Washington Post with Carroll Fife (director of the Oakland office of the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment), stresses that the coronavirus pandemic has made a brutal housing crisis even worse. And private equity firms, according to Warren and Fife, are hoping to cash in on the misery by gobbling up “distressed real estate.”
“The nation is facing an acceleratinghousing crisis,” Warren and Fife warn. “Too many people had no stable housing before the pandemic hit, and COVID-19 has made the problem even worse. Renters who were already facing an affordable housing shortage — with many spending more than half of their income on rent — now have no federal rental assistance or federal protection from eviction. Homeowners have less than a month left of foreclosure protection. And more than 30 million people receiving unemployment insurance just saw their benefits cut by $600 a week, raising the threat of a wave of defaults that could trigger a double-dip recession.”
But while “families” see as a “looming catastrophe,” they add, “private equityfirms just see dollar signs.” And Warren and Fife cite a Wall Street Journal report that investors are hoping to buy “distressed real-estate assets at bargain prices.”
According to Warren and Fife, such “profiteering” is “straight out of private equity’s playbook during the 2008 financial crisis."
"Following the 2008 crash,” they explain, “corporations that grabbed up properties on the cheap, converted those homes into rentals and turned into the worst kind of slumlords — jacking up rents, neglecting maintenance requests and health and safety concerns, and eagerly assessing fines, fees and eviction notices. Other corporate-owned homes were left vacant in a hoarding of housing stock. We cannot stand by while this history repeats itself.”
Warren and Fife’s recommendations range from “strong federal legislation to guard against the coming wave of evictions and foreclosures, including emergency rental assistance” to preventing “predatory companies from further destabilizing neighborhoods and profiting off the displacement of families.”
“If we fail to prevent another private equity real estate grab,” Warren and Fife warn, “we risk allowing another massive upheaval in the housing market that could wreak more havoc on low-income Americans — especially black and brown families still recovering from losing their homes a decade ago. Against a decades-long backdrop of racist federal policies that have impeded black homeownership, lawmakers’ refusal to proactively address this problem would be an indefensible oversight that would again give Wall Street carte blanche to use a national crisis to enact a massive, generational transfer of wealth from vulnerable Americans to corporations."
https://www.alternet.org/2020/08/elizabeth-warren-sounds-the-alarm-on-a-mounting-housing-crisis-and-the-profiteers-who-will-take-advantage/
aha pseudo-populism trashes expertise (of science and gubmint), free mkt says all gov't inept, the only real expert is pvt biz/accounting consultant, which lead to more hollowing out: mck wants to keep all data propietary so can sell to mult gov't agy, HENCE EXTRACTION
death spiral, pro pub 720:
Given that McKinsey consultants operate as advisers, with government officials charged with making final decisions, it can be hard to identify the firm’s responsibility for any given decision. But the firm’s government work has been steadily rising in the wake of a multidecade hollowing out of government (a trend McKinsey has promoted and ridden). Today, that increasingly means that if you examine the government’s response to the pandemic, you’re likely to find McKinsey’s fingerprints.
===
420 pro publ
One Thing the Pandemic Hasn’t Stopped: Aggressive Medical-Debt Collection
U.S. hospitals are in the spotlight for being on the frontline of fighting the pandemic. But in the shadows, debt collection operations continue, often by the same institutions treating coronavirus patients, all while unemployment and uncertainty soar.
by Alec MacGillis
| VIEW STORY |
==
==
aha 420: all social media and search engine facebook google are data extraction, worth more than oil
==
omfg fire whistleblower
https://www.alternet.org/2020/04/heres-what-wall-street-doesnt-want-you-to-know-about-its-grip-on-emergency-rooms/
no lnx
Here’s what Wall Street doesn’t want you to know about its grip on emergency rooms
Written by Eileen Appelbaum, Rosemary Batt / Independent Media Institute April 3, 2020
Doctor Ling Min is the first emergency room doctor to be fired for going public with his concerns about poor hospital emergency room safety practices and shortages of medical supplies and protective gear for health workers.
He won’t be the last.
Like many hospitals in the US, PeaceHealth St. Joseph Medical Center in Bellingham Washington, where Ling Min worked for the past 17 years as an emergency room doctor, has outsourced the management and staffing of its emergency room.So, Min works on-site at the hospital’s ER, but he is employed by a physician staffing firm that runs the ER. These staffing firms are often behind the surprise medical bills for ER services that patients receive after their insurance company has paid the hospital and doctors, but not the excessive out-of-network charges billed by these outside staffing firms.[huh?]
About a third of hospital emergency rooms are staffed by doctors on the payrolls of two physician staffing companies—TeamHealth and Envision Health—owned by Wall Street investment firms. Envision Healthcare employs 69,000 healthcare workers nationwide while TeamHealth employs 20,000. Private equity firm Blackstone Group owns TeamHealth, Kravis Kohlberg Roberts (KKR) owns Envision.
Care of the sick is not the mission of these companies; their mission is to make outsized profits for the private equity firms and its investors. Overcharging patients and insurance companies for providing urgent and desperately needed emergency medical care is bad enough. But it is unconscionable to muzzle doctors who speak out to advocate for the health of their patients and co-workers during the global pandemic that is rapidly spreading across the US.
Yet, that is what Blackstone-owned TeamHealth just did. Why would an experienced ER doctor be fired in the middle of a pandemic? One clue may be that Blackstone’s CEO, Stephen A. Schwarzman, is part of President Trump’s inner circle. He may not want to risk that relationship by allowing TeamHealth’s doctors to inform the public about Washington’s mishandling of the allocation of supplies and protective gear. The president might conclude that TeamHealth doctors didn’t appreciate him enough, and where would that leave Schwartzman?
PeaceHealth St. Joseph Medical Center may have the distinction of being the first hospital to have a doctor outsourced from a physician staffing firm unceremoniously fired for telling the public the truth. But it won’t be the last. Hospitals are now telling doctors treating coronavirus patients they will be fired if they speak to the press.
The American Academy of Emergency Medicine protested Dr. Min’s ouster and questioned how TeamHealth is allowed to provide hospital services when the law requires that physician practices must be owned by a licensed medical practitioner. TeamHealth skirts the law by owning all the assets of the physician practices it acquires—the real estate, offices, equipment, supplies, inventory, and even accounts receivable.
On paper, the physician practices are owned by a doctor-led organization that TeamHealth has set up to comply with the law. But what does it mean to own a physician practice if the practice has no assets and no possibility to exist on its own?
The furor over patients hit by surprise medical bills revealed that TeamHealth controls the billing for the doctors it supplies to hospital emergency rooms. The firing of Doctor Ling Min pulls back the curtain and reveals that TeamHealth controls the doctors as well.
Eileen Appelbaum is the Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research and visiting professor, School of Management, University of Leicester, UK.
Rosemary Batt is the Alice Hanson Cook Professor of Women and Work, Cornell University ILR School.
This article was produced by Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute.
extraction scam grift basis:
aha extraction, but special cat: dereg makes big public taxpayer $ vulnerable for extraction (via uber myth corps good/effic and gov't bad/bloated/collectivist)
//charter
aha2: pvt // deregulation; afr and latix ppl of color mos need education, but cn last afford, least prepard for it; fed loans (and maybe student/family savings) are a big target to extract from; online fior profit college biggest grift/profit attractor b/c can do in "spare" time. betsy devos dereg accredidation
=
https://www.ecowatch.com/nature-destruction-violence-women-2644975232.html
no lnx
Where Humans Destroy Nature, Women Also Suffer More Violence
Common Dreams Jan 30 CLIMATE
The Diwalwal Gold Mine in Mindanao, Philippines on Feb. 1, 1988. Destruction of the environment by extractive industries is linked to significant threats to women's safety, a new study has found. Patrick AVENTURIER / Gamma-Rapho via Getty Images
By Julia Conley
Climate action leaders have warned for years that marginalized frontline communities in poor countries are already facing the most destructive impacts of the climate crisis, and a new study confirms those fears, detailing how women in those regions are at greater risk for violence and abuse as the environment is degraded.
The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) released its study on Wednesday after conducting more than 80 case studies and speaking to more than 300 sources over the course of a two-year project.
:{
}:
"This study adds to the urgency of halting environmental degradation alongside action to stop gender-based violence in all its forms, and demonstrates that the two issues often need to be addressed together," said Dr. Grethel Aguilar, IUCN's acting director-general.
The study is the largest and most comprehensive to ever examine the gender-specific effects of the climate crisis, IUCN says.
Of the more than 300 responses IUCN compiled from international organizations working in developing countries, six in 10 respondents said they had observed gender-based violence directed at female environmental defenders, climate refugees and migrants, and an increase in such violence in areas where the climate crisis and global heating has put a strain on resources.
Abuses the organizations uncovered include child marriage and forced marriage, forced prostitution, sexual violence and assault, and human trafficking.
"As environmental degradation and stress on ecosystems increases, that in turn creates scarcity and stress for people, and the evidence shows that, where environmental pressures increase, gender-based violence increases," said Cate Owren, lead author of the report.
The publication was praised by women's rights advocates on social media.
"The fight against the climate crisis will have far more of an impact if represented by those most affected," tweeted the British Women's Equality Party.
The study found that both human trafficking and forced child marriage are becoming increasingly common in places where chronic drought, flooding and heatwaves have caused crop yields to suffer and brought on a scarcity of resources.
"When families struggle to meet basic needs, marrying off young daughters is seen as a way to lighten financial burdens," the report reads. "There is growing concern around reports of an increase in child marriage associated with conflict and natural disasters and environmental shocks."
According to The Guardian, about 12 million more young girls are believed to have been married off after extreme weather events increased, while human trafficking increases by 20 to 30% after weather disasters.
"In most parts of the world, women are already disadvantaged and lack land rights and legal rights, so are vulnerable to exploitation," wrote Fiona Harvey in The Guardian. "When the additional stresses caused by the climate crises bite, they are the first to be targeted."
The destruction of the environment by extractive industries has significant effects on women's safety, as an influx of male miners, construction workers and security guards is linked to an increase in gender-based and sexual violence, often with Indigenous women as targets.
"Mining areas, many of which are in Indigenous territories, have seen heavy military presence, resulting in various human rights violations, such as torture, psychological disturbance, destruction and divestment of properties (livestock and crops), as well as violence against women, including rape," reads the study in a section about the Mindanao region of the Philippines.
Sexual violence is also used to suppress women who attempt to defend their homes and environments from extractive industries, and to intimidate others who may come forward in protest.
"Environmental crimes degrade ecosystems, and also often bring new, worsening patterns of violence against women, minorities, and marginalized communities," said Jenny Springer, director of IUCN's global program on governance and rights. "Many Indigenous women in particular face gender-based and other violence as their communities act to defend their territories, resources and rights from such illegal activities."
Since women in many parts of the world are responsible for gathering water and provisions for their families, they are often at an increasingly greater risk for gender-based violence as they have to travel farther from home, as resources shrink.
IUCN surveyed the Danish Refugee Council, which conducted a study at Doro Refugee Camp in South Sudan regarding dangers faced by residents there. Women in the study identified collecting firewood outside the camp as the biggest risk they regularly took.
"Food insecurity and the lack of firewood forces women and girls to go outside of the camps to collect firewood despite the risks of suffering violence by militias, private forest owners, rangers or other unknown perpetrators," the report reads. "Many ... survey respondents also raised these concerns as one of the major threats in refugee camps as related to emergency responses and protracted crises."
IUCN's study was released a day after CARE International published its report "Suffering in Silence," showing how the climate crisis has exacerbated conflicts and economic and political instability across Africa, making the continent home to nine of the 10 most-overlooked humanitarian crises in the world.
"Environmental degradation now affects our lives in ways that are becoming impossible to ignore, from food to jobs to security," said Aguilar. "This study shows that the damage humanity is inflicting on nature is also fueling violence against women around the world — a link that has so far been largely overlooked."
Reposted with permission from Common Dreams.
How the Women of Standing Rock Are Building Sovereign Economies ›
At COP25, Women's Rights and Climate Activists Advocate a ... ›
The March for Equity, the Environment, and Women Are One, Says ... ›
Dozens of Scientists Are Pushing the UN to Make Environmental ... ›
Climate Destruction as Gender Violence ›
==
==
micro-disaster cap'lism?
Uber and Lyft price-gouge customers trying to flee Seattle shooting120 anNicole Karlis / Salon
==
rental housing becomes the next bubble gt recession CDS? blackstone
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-housing-rights/global-investors-wreaking-havoc-on-low-income-renters-u-n-says-idUSKCN1R71L5
3/19
(Thomson Reuters Foundation) -Large investment firms are worsening global housing shortages by forcing vulnerable out of low-income homes and upgrading them for higher rents, said United Nations human rights experts, who appealed to countries to tighten up regulation.
These firms had become the world’s biggest landlords, and “converted homes into financial instruments and investments”, said Leilani Farha, U.N. Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing, in a statement released Tuesday.
“Landlords have become faceless corporations wreaking havoc with tenants’ right to security and contributing to the global housing crisis,” she said.
Farha and Surya Deva, chairman of the U.N. Working Group on business and human rights, wrote to Blackstone Group LP, the world’s largest private equity firm, and authorities in Denmark, Ireland, Spain, Sweden, the United States and Czech Republic.[have laws that req action; US not sign treaties/agreement int'l]
Preferential tax laws and weak tenant protections in these countries have left vulnerable communities at risk of eviction and homelessness, they said.
“We remind all States, that while gold is a commodity, housing is not, it’s a human right,” they said.
==
https://www.alternet.org/2019/12/how-some-alabama-county-sheriffs-force-their-inmates-into-medical-debt
no lnx
How some Alabama county sheriffs force their inmates into medical debt
Written by ProPublica December 26, 2019
This article was produced in partnership with AL.com, which is a member of the ProPublica Local Reporting Network.
In Alabama, the county in which you’re arrested could be the deciding factor in who will be financially responsible for your medical bills behind bars.
:{
}:
In Baldwin County, known for its white-sand Gulf Coast beaches and waterfront communities, the sheriff’s office ensures that inmates in the county jail do not have to pay anything more than a $15 copayment for medical care.
:{
}:
“Inmates are not billed for the full cost of any medical care either inside or outside” the jail, Sheriff Hoss Mack said in an email. “Alabama Code Title 14 assigns financial responsibility of inmates’ medical treatment to the department where they are being held.”
:{
}:
Just across the bay in Mobile County, home to one of the busiest ports in the U.S. and the eponymous city of nearly 200,000 people built around it, Sheriff Sam Cochran takes a different tack: Some of his inmates are personally on the hook for the full cost of medically necessary care they receive from outside doctors while incarcerated, even if they are awaiting trial.
The difference between the two sheriffs’ approaches demonstrates the unique power Alabama sheriffs have to set their own rules and answer only to voters.Legal experts and civil rights advocates say sheriffs like Cochran are likely violating both state law and the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment and excessive fines.
It’s not just happening in Mobile County. In multiple instances confirmed by AL.com and ProPublica, inmates have had medical bills sent to collections while they were still behind bars, damaging their credit and putting pressure on their family members to pay up to ensure the care continued.
Brandon DeLaFosse is among them. He was arrested on domestic violence, burglary and robbery charges and booked into the Mobile County Metro Jail in November 2018, three months after he underwent surgery on his inner ear. Since then, he has received bills totaling thousands of dollars for necessary follow-up appointments and tests, some of which have gone to collections while he remains behind bars.
“He keeps getting bills in the mail,” said Alicia DeLaFosse, Brandon’s mother, who has paid hundreds of dollars for care he has received while in custody. “It’s all money he owes from going back and forth to the doctor.”
Like many inmates, DeLaFosse doesn’t have significant income or access to public or private insurance in jail.
Alabama law is clear: If an “inmate develops a medical condition which requires immediate treatment at a medical-care facility outside the county jail, the department shall be financially responsible for the cost of the treatment of the inmate.”
:{
}:
But Cochran said when the jail’s doctors determine inmates need care that goes beyond what in-house medical staff and contracted outpatient providers can handle, they are often taken to private medical professionals who do not have contracts with the jail. And he allows those medical providers to bill at least some of those inmates directly.
“When that person is taken out to that private medical facility or something like that, then, yeah, they’re going to bill him for that treatment,” Cochran said during an interview in his office last month. “It’s a more than reasonable thing to do.”
Asked later about the details of Brandon DeLaFosse’s case and how the practice squares with state and federal law, Cochran provided an email written by Trey Oliver, warden of the Mobile County Metro Jail.
Oliver wrote that inmates are required to pay “when they have a follow-up procedure or visit from a surgery conducted prior to being booked.”
As for DeLaFosse, Oliver wrote, “There was a follow up visit or two and his mother agreed to pay it beforehand.”
Most jails and prisons across Alabama and the U.S. either have doctors and nurses on staff or contract with outside companies to provide medical care in their lockups. It’s not uncommon for inmates to be charged low copays — typically less than $20 — for medications and medical services.
But requiring inmates to foot the bill for their health care takes that practice to another level.
That’s “like charging them for their own food,” said John Lentine, a Birmingham criminal defense attorney and adjunct law professor at Samford University’s Cumberland School of Law and the Birmingham School of Law. “To me it’s a basic human rights kind of thing.”
Michele Deitch, a senior lecturer at the University of Texas at Austin’s School of Law and Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, said the practice is “absolutely” unconstitutional.
“There is a constitutional obligation to provide health care that meets the serious medical needs of people who are incarcerated,” said Deitch, who co-wrote the American Bar Association’s Standards on Treatment of Prisoners. “That’s not negotiable.”
The tactic is another way in which sheriffs across Alabama are avoiding financial responsibility for inmate medical care. AL.com and ProPublica reported in September that many sheriffs in Alabama and across the country are finding ways to release inmates from jail just before they incur expensive hospital bills, a tactic known as “medical bond.”
In several recent cases, incarcerated people around the country have successfully challenged policies restricting their access to free medical care in prison.
Last year, a federal court ruled that transgender inmates in Missouri’s state prisons have a right to receive hormone therapy free of charge while incarcerated, regardless of whether they were already receiving the treatments when they were taken into custody. And this year, prisoners in Minnesota reached a settlement with the state’s Department of Corrections that requires the prison system to provide prisoners who have Hepatitis C with expensive drugs that often cure the infection.
AL.com and ProPublica attempted to contact the sheriffs of all 67 counties in Alabama via email or phone to ask whether they allow inmates to be billed for care they receive while incarcerated. Of those, 13 sheriffs and one chief deputy responded. The sheriff of Mobile County and chief deputy of Jackson County each said they allow providers to bill inmates for necessary care in certain situations. Ten sheriffs said they do not allow inmates to be billed. Two others declined to comment.
“I’m Still Getting Bills”
Days after Thanksgiving last year, Brandon DeLaFosse was arrested in Mississippi on outstanding warrants stemming from an incident earlier that month in Mobile County, Alabama.
The then-28-year-old was driven back to Mobile, where he stayed in the county jail until Feb. 28, when he was sentenced to three years in prison.
DeLaFosse’s health problems continued behind bars. Since his ear surgery last year, he has suffered from persistent ear infections and severe hearing loss.
And his bills are piling up.
In between Marlboro Lights and peanut butter-and-syrup sandwiches at her Irvington home last month, DeLaFosse’s mother, Alicia, said she spends many hours each week making calls, sending emails and conducting research to advocate on behalf of her son.
She said a steady stream of medical bills addressed to her son has arrived at her house since his arrest. Billing records show that she has spent more than $600 on his care since his arrest, and more than $1,000 in outstanding bills have gone to debt collection.
On Dec. 6, 2018, while he was in the Mobile County Metro Jail, Brandon DeLaFosse was taken to see an ear, nose and throat specialist at Providence Hospital in Mobile for a surgery follow-up visit recommended by the doctor. But first, his mother said, jail staff required her to make a payment to the doctor’s office. After the appointment, the hospital’s billing department sent a bill for $729 for tests he underwent that day to Alicia DeLaFosse’s house.
“The way the nurse at the jail explained it to me is because it was something that didn’t happen at the jail, it’s preexisting. … I had to go pay for it myself,” she said. “For the jail to allow him to go see the doctor, I had to go to the doctor’s office and pay $125 first.”
A registered nurse at the jail in Mobile noted in Brandon DeLaFosse’s medical record that his mother made a payment and that the nurse had scheduled a follow-up visit for later that month. In January 2019, a nurse practitioner at the jail wrote a note in his file stating she would request another follow-up appointment with his doctor “with the expectation that it is handled in the usual fashion with his mother arranging for payment.”
“I don’t think it’s fair. They’re responsible for my medical care, so why should it be coming out of my pockets or my family’s pockets?” Brandon DeLaFosse said in a jailhouse phone call.
Cochran, the Mobile County sheriff, said via email that he views the situation as a “legal dispute between [Brandon DeLaFosse], us and our contracted provider. I know of no complaint or claim made against us.”
“The mom agreed to pay [the] bill. Looks like she reneged,” Cochran wrote. “Otherwise if it would have been medically necessary our contracted folks would have handled.”
Alicia DeLaFosse said she “didn’t renege” and paid for all of the medical costs she knew about in advance.
Brandon DeLaFosse continued to be billed for outside medical care after he was moved to state prison. On July 23, nearly five months after his sentence began, he saw a doctor and underwent tests at Providence Hospital. He was sent a bill for $224.70 for outpatient diagnostics administered that day, plus $71.98 for the doctor visit.
That shouldn’t have happened, a spokeswoman for the Alabama Department of Corrections said in a statement.
“By ADOC’S policy, all inmates in the care, custody, and control of any ADOC correctional facility are not charged or responsible for community-based medical care or mental health services,” the spokeswoman, Samantha Banks, said.
Any state prisoners “incorrectly” billed for outpatient medical care should notify the provider that they were incarcerated at the time, the statement explained. “The medical provider should submit to the Department the appropriate paperwork and any outstanding inmate medical bills will be directed to the appropriate payer.”
State prisoners in Arizona have reported similar issues with providers billing them directly for medical care they received while incarcerated, as KJZZ radio reported this year. Like in Alabama, the Arizona Department of Corrections has said the bills were sent out in error and that the department or its medical contractor would pay the inmates’ bills.
But that’s a vastly different situation than the one facing inmates in some Alabama counties, where sheriff’s offices are not chalking up such bills to error and are in fact deliberately choosing to avoid paying medical bills for inmates in their charge.
Constitutional Question
Though the public often has little sympathy for inmates, incarcerated people do have clear rights, particularly when it comes to health care behind bars.
Alabama law states that “necessary clothing and bedding must be furnished by the sheriff or jailer, at the expense of the county, to those prisoners who are unable to provide them for themselves, and also necessary medicines and medical attention to those who are sick or injured, when they are unable to provide them for themselves.”
In another section of the state code, a definition of a county inmate includes an explicit reference to their health care being provided for: “any person being held in a public institution under the administrative control and responsibility of the county sheriff and for whom the county is responsible for the provision of medical care.”
Brandon Blankenship, an assistant professor of law and ethics at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said that allowing inmates to be billed for care that they receive while incarcerated amounts to cruel and unusual punishment and that the bills are excessive fines.
“I don’t think it’s ever been challenged in court in Alabama, but from where I’m sitting, the answer to me is that, no, it’s certainly not constitutional under the Eighth Amendment.”
The tactics of some Alabama sheriffs stand in sharp contrast to what’s going on elsewhere in the country. This year, California and Illinois banned the practice of charging inmates copays, and a number of other states have taken, or are considering, steps to rein in the practice.
“They usually cannot afford even a $5 copay, so the idea that they could pay thousands of dollars for these services is laughable from a practical perspective and it’s downright evil on many different levels,” said Deitch, the University of Texas at Austin professor.
In 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a seminal case, City of Revere v. Massachusetts General Hospital, involving a person who was hurt during an arrest and taken to a hospital. The court ruled that “as long as the governmental entity ensures that the medical care needed is in fact provided, the Constitution does not dictate how the cost of that care should be allocated as between the entity and the provider of the care. That is a matter of state law.”
But that ruling did not answer the question of whether inmates can be stuck with the bill.
“We don’t have any clear Supreme Court ruling,” said Fred Cohen, a professor emeritus at the University at Albany’s School of Criminal Justice who has decades of experience in corrections law and serves as executive editor of Correctional Law Reporter.
Cohen said he believes there is a good case to be made that the practice of allowing inmates to be billed for medical care violates their constitutional rights.
“I don’t think it’s an open policy question in that inmates should not be required to pay,” he said. “I think it could be held unconstitutional by the right court.”
Different Systems
...
==
aha, lessen power of one small aspect of democracy in cap'lism, structural incentive MAX profit [// Worster Dust Bowl maxims, extraction]
1219, CoC lobby
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/05/reuters-america-update-1-u-s-sec-proposes-rules-that-could-limit-shareholder-voices.html
Nov 5 (Reuters) - Wall Street’s top regulator on Tuesday proposed a pair of long-awaited rules that would set new limits on shareholders ability to call for corporate changes on thorny issues like climate change disclosures and executive compensation In one of the biggest wins for the corporate lobby under President Donald Trump, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission voted 3-2 along partisan lines to raise the re-submission thresholds for motions that shareholders file on company ballots and to put new requirements on firms guiding investors how to vote in corporate elections.
Both shareholder proposals and proxy advisory firms are cornerstones of corporate governance and how investors hold management accountable.
Both changes will be subject to public comment.
Democrats Rob Jackson and Allison Herren Lee voted against the rules, saying they tilted the playing field toward corporate management.
==
==
https://www.alternet.org/2019/11/how-progressive-lawmakers-seek-to-take-on-the-egregious-scale-of-ceo-pay/
no lnx
How progressive lawmakers seek to take on the egregious scale of CEO pay
Written by David Atkins / Washington Monthly November 15, 2019
Tackling wealth inequality is admittedly hard. The rich have access to very good accountants, lawyers, and lobbyists. There are a lot of places for them to stash their wealth. Loopholes are easy to create. Not to mention, they can always move (although they don’t carry out the threat nearly as often as conservatives would have you believe) if they really don’t like or can’t escape the tax bill.
Solving the problem requires a variety of approaches from many different angles: wealth taxes, financial transaction taxes, estate taxes, corporate taxes, loophole elimination, campaign finance changes, tax haven penalties, etc. Any one of them may fail, or be easy for certain classes of individuals to escape. Collectively, however, they can both put a dent in the deficit allowing for greater expenditures on social services and climate change abatement. More importantly, they can reduce the corrosive wealth inequality that is eating away at our democracy. Reducing the amount of the money hoarded by the obscenely wealthy would be a good thing on its own merits, even if it were merely burned in a bonfire rather than added to the Treasury.
That’s why a new proposal from a bevy of progressive lawmakers comes as a welcome and innovative addition to the policy arsenal: increasing the corporate tax rate in accordance with the gap between CEO pay and median worker pay. Here’s the general idea:
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) introduced the Tax Excessive CEO Pay Act, which rewrites the federal tax code to tackle the inequality crisis created by corporate America’s unrestrained greed.
The typical restaurant employee at McDonald’s would have to work for more than 2,000 years to earn what the company’s CEO Chris Kempczinski received last year. A retail worker at Gap Inc. would have to work for more than 3,000 years to receive the annual compensation of Gap’s former CEO Art Peck. Peck’s pay was increased by 33 percent in 2018, even after he presided over years of declines in sales and stock prices.
The Tax Excessive CEO Pay Act would pressure corporations to curb these outrageous pay gaps that are the norm today, by imposing graduated taxes for companies that pay their CEO more than 50 times the pay of the median worker. The tax penalties would begin at 0.5 percentage points and rise to 5 percentage points for firms compensating their chief executives at more than 500 times the rate of their workers. A recent report by the Institute for Policy Studies found that 80 percent of S&P 500 firms paid their CEOs more than 100 times the pay of their median worker.
Many of the firms lavishing multi-million-dollar compensation packages on their top executives rely on taxpayer support—through public housing, nutrition assistance, and Medicaid, for example—to assist full-time workers who struggle with poverty wages.
CEO pay around the world, and especially in the United States, has become outrageous. While the average worker has only seen their compensation grow by 12 percent since 1968, the pay of the average CEO has increased by a whopping 940 percent since 1978. It’s not just an outrageous injustice that so many workers are being laid off, off-shored, and made insecure while the top executives make a killing. It also offends our very sense of how the economy is supposed to work: after all, it’s not as if CEOs are now a thousand times more productive than they were 40 years ago.
EXTRAction/smash and grab
In fact, the opposite is true: CEOs used to stick with a company for nearly a lifetime, their own reputation and financial well-being tied to the company’s. Now, they’re migrant mercenaries goosing quarterly profit in the short term while leaving the next guy holding the bag to deal with the consequences of the corners they cut. It breaks our understanding of the social and moral compact that underpins the political economy and the credibility of modern capitalism itself as an economic system. It would be great to pass the money being funneled to CEOs back to workers either in the form of wages or social program redistribution. But failing that, it would serve a valuable social good just to burn that money in a fire rather than continue to deliver it to the undeserving rich to buy another yacht.
Critics will call this a gimmick that doesn’t singlehandedly solve the problem, but ultimately, that isn’t the point.
First, it delivers a key political message: we understand that the economy is broken, that the social fabric is fraying, that the wrong people are being overcompensated for the wrong reasons, and that we intend to do something about that specifically.
Second, it attacks one of the aspects of wealth inequality in a direct, pre-distributive way. Rather than trying to claw back money from the obscenely wealthy after it has already been paid out, it incentivizes corporations not to give it to them in the first place. It puts coolant in the overheating engine that has been sending CEO pay skyrocketing to absurd levels in a chummy bidding war in the hands of a class of executives all too happy to distribute egregious sums to their friends and fellows.
Obviously, unless Democrats can both win the Senate and bypass the filibuster, this policy is dead on arrival against a wall of GOP obstruction. But it’s good to have in the back pocket in the meantime, and it would serve as excellent policy to campaign on as we approach the 2020 election, reminding the American people who is actually on the side of the average worker to build a fairer economy.
David Atkins is a writer, activist and research professional living in Santa Barbara. He is a contributor to the Washington Monthly’s Political Animal and president of The Pollux Group, a qualitative research firm.
1119
invert yield curve; homewreckers book 8 mil foreclosures; big % llc shell corps; // CDO; R wolff says banks can't deal with hit 1/2 of Gt Recession , get loans to cover loans; mnuchin etc wilbur recalled gov't baillout after S&L; mnu sez put 1.x billion but pain nothing for indybank and then got subsidies to foreclose?! // get car for free, put some bucks in then pocket total profit 11/8/19
==
==
new
steve mnu piad 0 for indy bank, and gov't guar lose no money, sold to buddy in same blg (bunch of pluto-crats ) soros, paulsen, wilbur
extensive interview: https://kpfa.org/episode/letters-and-politics-october-23-2019/
https://kpfa.org/episode/upfront-october-21-2019/
aaron glantz homewreckers
==
Five Indigenous Leaders Massacred in Colombia; New Wave of Violence Feared as 2,500 Troops Deployed
==
==
https://www.democracynow.org/2019/11/4/paulo_paulino_guajajara_amazon_indigenous_killings
indigenous forest protector named Paulo Paulino Guajajara was shot dead in the Amazon by illegal loggers on Saturday. It is the latest incident in a wave of violence targeting indigenous land protectors since the election of Brazil’s far-right President Jair Bolsonaro last year. Guajajara was killed when he and another forest protector were ambushed by a group of illegal loggers inside the Araribóia reservation in the northeastern state of Maranhão. We speak with João Coimbra Sousa, a field coordinator and legal adviser for Amazon Watch, in São Luís in the northeastern state of Maranhão. And in San Francisco, we speak with Christian Poirier, program director at Amazon Watch.
aha, subsidies not just federal; local tax incentive trying to lure biz/factory is a kind of extraction/extortion?! // sports arena: we'll take your team if you don't buy us luxury boxes. a kind of privatization? moreover, in a city demoralized for other reasons, economy, sports team is a source of pride/identity/ commonality
...
The Everything Store: The growing share of online shoppers who start their search on Amazon
Today, using large-scale statistical techniques, sociologists have confirmed Mills and Ulmer’s broad conclusions, finding, for example, that communities that possess more local economic power are better able to solve problems. But these ideas are no longer reflected in policy. Now, instead of actively seeking to disperse economic power, policy-makers encourage its concentration. Many elected officials are as enthralled with Bezos as his investors are, and they’ve been equally willing to fund Amazon’s growth. Congress has repeatedly declined to pass legislation that would allow states to require out-of-state retailers to collect sales taxes. This allowed Amazon to largely avoid collecting sales taxes for nearly two decades, giving it a price advantage that research shows helped drive shoppers to its site. Then, as Amazon’s warehouse expansion began to compel its compliance with sales taxes, the company started angling for local development incentives. It’s raked in more than $1.1 billionthrough these deals, according to Good Jobs First, and more than half of the warehouses that Amazon built between 2005 and 2015 received public subsidies....
// race to the bottom on outsourcing? the most desperate cities are willing to go deeper into debt, make a bigger bet?
==
==
capitalism is about max extraction, not just optimizing scarce resources (see cory d, it's not a good moral basis)
sharing economy started off as hippie tool library but morphed into uber and airbnb, extract value out of our last bits of privacy /assets/ time/life
==
richard wolff 519 share-cropper student loan tuition
https://www.c-span.org/video/?458861-1/land-fee
quite good
MARCH 18, 2019
Land of the Fee
Devin Fergustalked about his book, Land of the Fee: Hidden Costs and the Decline of the American Middle Class, on the hidden transaction fees that Americans regularly pay and the impact these costs have on the middle class.
==
Elizabeth Warren calls out Wall Street for trying to ‘squeeze out every last penny of profit’ from Puerto Rico
==
2015, late settled
https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-payday-lawsuit-20150804-story.html
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has filed a lawsuit against a Canadian payday lending company, alleging that its web of subsidiaries collected money that consumers did not owe and falsely threatened borrowers with imprisonment or wage garnishment.
In the lawsuit, regulators say the British Columbia-based NDG Financial Corp. and its "maze" of nine interrelated companies made and collected payday loans that were either completely or partially void in 17 states.
The companies, collectively called the NDG Enterprise, made consumers believe that federal and state laws did not apply to them, according to the lawsuit.
All of the companies except two are Canadian. Two are incorporated in Malta.
NDG Financial Corp. could not be reached for comment.
"Companies making loans within the U.S. have to comply with federal law," bureau director Richard Cordray said in a statement. "The Consumer Bureau will work to ensure that American consumers receive the protections and fair treatment they deserve.”
The lawsuit, filed last week in U.S. District Court in New York, said that since 2011,NDG Financial has extended payday loans exclusively over the Internet through its subsidiaries to U.S. consumers.
The NDG Enterprise has made loans in all 50 states. Loans generally are 14 days, or short term, and range from $100 to $1,500. Finance charges for each $100 borrowed can be between $19.98 and $26.98.
Some loan agreements also had an illegal clause giving the NDG Enterprise the authority to collect outstanding loan amounts directly from a consumer's wages via their employers if the borrower defaulted on the payment.
According to the lawsuit, the NDG Enterprise received payment directly from the employers' payroll accounts "numerous" times.This type of action could result in "serious and detrimental interference with employment relationships" and negatively affect promotions, raises or even lead to job loss, according to the lawsuit.
In "numerous instances," the NDG Enterprise also told consumers that non-payment of debt would result in a lawsuit, arrest, imprisonment or wage garnishment, even though it did not have the legal authority to do so.
Regulators are seeking monetary damages and to prevent the NDG Enterprise from violating federal consumer financial protection laws.
==
https://www.alternet.org/2019/03/heres-how-charter-schools-are-scamming-the-us-government/
A new report issued by the Network for Public Education provides a detailed accounting of how charter schools have scammed the U.S. Department of Education’s Charter Schools Program (CSP) for up to $1 billion in wasted grant money that went to charters that never opened or opened for only brief periods of time before being shut down for mismanagement, poor performance, lack of enrollment, or fraud.The report also found many of the charters receiving grant awards that managed to stay open fall far short of the grant program’s avowed mission to create “high-quality” schools for disadvantaged students.
President Trump’s 2020 budget blueprint proposes increasing funding for the charter grant program by 13.6 percent, from $440 to $500 million, and education secretary Betsy DeVos praised this increase as a step forward for “education freedom.” But the report finds that increasing federal funds for this program would mostly continue to perpetuate academic fraud.
Of the schools awarded grants directly from the department between 2009 and 2016, nearly one in four either never opened or shut their doors. The federal program’s own analysis from 2006 to 2014 of its direct and state pass-through funded programs found that nearly one out of three awardees were not currently in operation by the end of 2015.
Since then, the federal program has continued to award charters with grant money, increasing the total amount awarded to over $4 billion. Should the department’s own 2015 study finding hold, that one in three of the schools awarded grants had closed, never opened, or were not yet opened, the likely amount of money scammed by bogus charter operators tops $1 billion. In California alone, the state with the most charter schools, the failure rate for federal grant-awarded charters was 39 percent.Of the 306 schools that received CSP money but are not open, 75 are “ghost” schools—that is, they received money but never began.
...
==
Big Data / Privacy
Dynamic maps: online privacy and Big Data.
Shoshana Zuboff, author of The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, talked about the growing business of collecting and selling consumer data (video interview 2/19.
extraction is the new biz model, all sorts of only marginally related corps (like insurance?) are moving into the space b/c it's the only one that has chance of extending the kind of profits/loot of tech?!
Zucked: Waking Up to the Facebook Catastrophe Roger Mcnamee, The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age Tim Wu Video panel discussion 2/19 also Artificial Unintelligence Broussard.
Here’s What Google and Facebook Know About You—And What You Can Do About It: Both companies keep treasure troves of deeply personal data on users. 3/18.
Panel Discussion on Big Data Panelists included Cathy O’Neil, author of Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy, and Tim Wu, author of The Attention Merchants: The Epic Scramble to Get Inside Our Heads. 9/17. BookTV video (see also We are Data.
Big Data / Privacy
Dynamic maps: online privacy and Big Data.
Shoshana Zuboff, author of The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, talked about the growing business of collecting and selling consumer datavideo interview 2/19.
Zucked: Waking Up to the Facebook Catastrophe Roger Mcnamee, The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age Tim Wu Video panel discussion 2/19 also Artificial Unintelligence Broussard.
Here’s What Google and Facebook Know About You—And What You Can Do About It: Both companies keep treasure troves of deeply personal data on users. 3/18.
Panel Discussion on Big Data Panelists included Cathy O’Neil, author of Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy, and Tim Wu, author of The Attention Merchants: The Epic Scramble to Get Inside Our Heads. 9/17. BookTV video (see also We are Data.
==
are these parallel?
see Team Human
retrench rebrand retreat
eg james martin ctr
this began as node about success in name and shame forcing an org to "morph"
but listening aaron matte reminding me that the trump cand was an exercise in brand boosting [and of course pique) that he never expected to win, remind me on how so much now comes down the branding, memes [and extraction, see Team Human]
==
==
the uber lie: darwin invis hand meritocracy
univ supposed to be great equalizer, but poor get screwed by pred student loans, online trump U scams
https://www.democracynow.org/2019/3/13/cheating_bribes_lies_doj_charges_dozens
Operation Varsity Blues. That’s the name of a sweeping federal probe into what the Justice Department calls the biggest college admissions scam the agency has ever uncovered. On Tuesday, 50 people, including 13 college coaches, were arrested for taking part in a scheme where wealthy parents paid exorbitant bribes to secure spots for their unqualified children in elite schools, including Yale, Stanford, Georgetown, UCLA, USC and Wake Forest. Prosecutors have charged 33 parents, including Hollywood stars Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin; Loughlin’s husband, the fashion designer Mossimo Giannulli; and Bill McGlashan, a founder of TPG Capital, one of the largest private equity investment firms in the world. We speak with Ivory Toldson, professor of counseling psychology at Howard University and president of Quality Education for Minorities. His new book is titled “No BS (Bad Stats): Black People Need People Who Believe in Black People Enough Not to Believe Every Bad Thing They Hear About Black People.”
....
:{
GOODMAN: So, that’s the FBI special agent talking about this scandal. No actual schools were charged, though people within the schools, like, you know, the head of soccer at Yale, for example. You had these pictures sent in of athletes with their heads photoshopped to be a student who didn’t even play the particular game, in cases like water polo. What message does this scandal send to black and brown children, to white not wealthy children, who believe that higher education is a meritocracy? What do you say to them?
IVORY TOLDSON: Yeah, yeah. Well, I hope it’s a wake-up call for people who have bought into the system that people become wealthy because they have worked hard. It’s a deception that’s pervasive in our society. Among the wealthy, their objective is passive income. You know, they talk actively about making money without working.That’s what they talk about in their own social networks. But yet, when they’re talking to people who may work for them, they try to make it seem like it’s all about working hard. In reality, it should be about working hard. Everybody should work hard for what they have. But there are people in this country, unfortunately, who wouldrather manipulate the system so that some people work hard to get enough, and other people work not at all and get more.
And I think it also does a disservice to their children, because their children will grow up feeling a false sense of entitlement, believing in unearned privilege, believing in inherited wealth and all of the things that will lead to certain types of predatory behaviors, whether it be predatory lending,manipulating markets, predatory landlords—you know, different aspects of society that we’ve all grown to loathe. All of this is cultivated in these types of environments.
}:
==
https://www.splcenter.org/news/2019/02/21/following-splc-complaint-louisiana-bail-bond-companies-ordered-repay-millions-excess-fees
==
EXTRACTION:
rw radio often use fda loophole to hustle vit/diet supplements; preys on magical thinking; MLM is odd hybrid see below of individuality , but leaches off personal network; UBER extracts via car, AIRBNB personal space. Capitalism extract natural world resources, FANG of digital world.
Regarding the prosperity gospel, Fea cites the work of historian Kate Bowler, writing, “Prosperity preachers teach that faith in God combined with positive thinking and an optimistic attitude will ultimately lead to monetary wealth, good health, and victory over the difficult circumstances of life.” His broader background descriptions are adequate, but his focus on one figure, Paula White, who has a long history with Trump, is not fleshed out much.
:{
}:
Fea mentions but does not elaborate on Trump’s youthful experience hearing sermons from Norman Vincent Peale, author of “The Power of Positive Thinking,” and never delves into how Trump’s own business practices have reflected the influence of such figures, such as this 2011 New York magazine story about Trump’s multi-level vitamin marketing scheme.The prosperity gospel is the utmost in individualism, while at the same time relying on a powerful and persuasive social environment, which Fea’s analysis does not include.