#2008 bailout

[wack-ashimself]

So because they made things SO bad, they are gonna make them worse?

Prices/inflation (does it really matter the term?) are at an all time high, but, theft* is at a historic high, YET profits are at a 30 year high.

So even tho people are stealing more than ever (mostly DUE to prices), profits continue to rise (they wouldn't stay in business if it wasn't profitable). BUT because we are cutting into their MAXIMUM profits....

there's rumors they will use these thefts (again-the thefts are due to them AND they are still profiting) to implement (force) a government mandated digital currency.

If you think about it, that IS the way to stop thefts but...

I don't think they realize that the corna lockdown turned more people against the government than for it.

(Biden sure as fuck didn't help anything after either).

So I am gonna say it: I FUCKING DARE YOU TO TRY!

You thought theft was bad before? Wait till they plan it in large coordinated groups, you stupid greedy fucks; you will have more stolen than the last decade combined mother fuckers. We are learning from France...

You make it too costly to live, we will CHOKE out your air supply.

We don't work, we don't buy; you die. Simple as that.

Do you even know how to cook your own food? Seriously. Rich people....when shit hits the fan, poor people are used to doing whatever it takes, scraping by, and still coming out breathing. I don't think you even have the knowledge, let alone genetics, to fend for yourself. You need armies; we just need each other.

*btw, 2008 bailout and so many other years the 1% stealing ALWAYS beats what the 99% stole. Sorry, but if 1 million people stole 100 dollars, that's 100 million. But if 10 people stole a billion dollars....it's just math people. The biggest thefts, rapes, murders etc are ALWAYS from the 1%! NEVER FORGET!

[elderinternetresurrection]

US gov., 2008: GM is too big to fail, we must bail them out

US gov., 2009: *phew* that was scary, let's make sure no company ever ends up in that situation again

US gov., 2028: Elon Musk is too big to fail, we must bail him out

[jourke-rourke]

Leverage (2008) // S02xE01 // "The Beantown Bailout Job"

i like this exchange because depending on how you reverse that statement, you end up with three possible interpretations, each funnier than the last and all equally true:

solving poor people's problems

creating rich people's problems

solving problem rich people

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Insurance companies are making climate risk worse

Tomorrow (November 29), I'm at NYC's Strand Books with my novel The Lost Cause, a solarpunk tale of hope and danger that Rebecca Solnit called "completely delightful."

Conservatives may deride the "reality-based community" as a drag on progress and commercial expansion, but even the most noxious pump-and-dump capitalism is supposed to remain tethered to reality by two unbreakable fetters: auditing and insurance:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community

No matter how much you value profit over ethics or human thriving, you still need honest books – even if you never show those books to the taxman or the marks. Even an outright scammer needs to know what's coming in and what's going out so they don't get caught in a liquidity trap (that is, "broke"), or overleveraged ("broke," again) exposed to market changes (you guessed it: "broke").

Unfortunately for capitalism, auditing is on its deathbed. The market is sewn up by the wildly corrupt and conflicted Big Four accounting firms that are the very definition of too big to fail/too big to jail. They keep cooking books on behalf of management to the detriment of investors. These double-entry fabrications conceal rot in giant, structurally important firms until they implode spectacularly and suddenly, leaving workers, suppliers, customers and investors in a state of utter higgeldy-piggeldy:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/29/great-andersens-ghost/#mene-mene-bezzle

In helping corporations defraud institutional investors, auditors are facilitating mass scale millionaire-on-billionaire violence, and while that may seem like the kind of fight where you're happy to see either party lose, there are inevitably a lot of noncombatants in the blast radius. Since the Enron collapse, the entire accounting sector has turned to quicksand, which is a big deal, given that it's what industrial capitalism's foundations are anchored to. There's a reason my last novel was a thriller about forensic accounting and Big Tech:

https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250865847/red-team-blues

But accounting isn't the only bedrock that's been reduced to slurry here in capitalism's end-times. The insurance sector is meant to be an unshakably rational enterprise, imposing discipline on the rest of the economy. Sure, your company can do something stupid and reckless, but the insurance bill will be stonking, sufficient to consume the expected additional profits.

But the crash of 2008 made it clear that the largest insurance companies in the world were capable of the same wishful thinking, motivated reasoning, and short-termism that they were supposed to prevent in every other business. Without AIG – one of the largest insurers in the world – there would have been no Great Financial Crisis. The company knowingly underwrote hundreds of billions of dollars in junk bonds dressed up as AAA debt, and required a $180b bailout.

Still, many of us have nursed an ember of hope that the insurance sector would spur Big Finance and its pocket governments into taking the climate emergency seriously. When rising seas and wildfires and zoonotic plagues and famines and rolling refugee crises make cities, businesses, and homes uninsurable risks, then insurers will stop writing policies and the doom will become undeniable. Money talks, bullshit walks.

But while insurers have begun to withdraw from the most climate-endangered places (or crank up premiums), the net effect is to decrease climate resilience and increase risk, creating a "climate risk doom loop" that Advait Arun lays out brilliantly for Phenomenal World:

https://www.phenomenalworld.org/analysis/the-doom-loop/

Part of the problem is political: as people move into high-risk areas (flood-prone coastal cities, fire-threatened urban-wildlife interfaces), politicians are pulling out all the stops to keep insurers from disinvesting in these high-risk zones. They're loosening insurance regs, subsidizing policies, and imposing "disaster risk fees" on everyone in the region.

But the insurance companies themselves are simply not responding aggressively enough to the rising risk. Climate risk is correlated, after all: when everyone in a region is at flood risk, then everyone will be making a claim on the insurance company when the waters come. The insurance trick of spreading risk only works if the risks to everyone in that spread aren't correlated.

Perversely, insurance companies are heavily invested in fossil fuel companies, these being reliable money-spinners where an insurer can park and grow your premiums, on the assumption that most of the people in the risk pool won't file claims at the same time. But those same fossil-fuel assets produce the very correlated risk that could bring down the whole system.

The system is in trouble. US claims from "natural disasters" are topping $100b/year – up from $4.6b in 2000. Home insurance premiums are up (21%!), but it's not enough, especially in drowning Florida and Texas (which is also both roasting and freezing):

https://grist.org/economics/as-climate-risks-mount-the-insurance-safety-net-is-collapsing/

Insurers who put premiums up to cover this new risk run into a paradox: the higher premiums get, the more risk-tolerant customers get. When flood insurance is cheap, lots of homeowners will stump up for it and create a big, uncorrelated risk-pool. When premiums skyrocket, the only people who buy flood policies are homeowners who are dead certain their house is gonna get flooded out and soon. Now you have a risk pool consisting solely of highly correlated, high risk homes. The technical term for this in the insurance trade is: "bad."

But it gets worse: people who decide not to buy policies as prices go up may be doing their own "motivated reasoning" and "mispricing their risk." That is, they may decide, "If I can't afford to move, and I can't afford to sell my house because it's in a flood-zone, and I can't afford insurance, I guess that means I'm going to live here and be uninsured and hope for the best."

This is also bad. The amount of uninsured losses from US climate disaster "dwarfs" insured losses:

https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/hurricanes-floods-bring-120-billion-insurance-losses-2022-2023-01-09/

Here's the doom-loop in a nutshell:

As carbon emissions continue to accumulate, more people are put at risk of climate disaster, while the damages from those disasters intensifies. Vulnerability will drive disinvestment, which in turn exacerbates vulnerability.

Also: the browner and poorer you are, the worse you have it: you are impacted "first and worst":

https://www.climaterealityproject.org/frontline-fenceline-communities

As Arun writes, "Tinkering with insurance markets will not solve their real issues—we must patch the gaping holes in the financial system itself." We have to end the loop that sees the poorest places least insured, and the loss of insurance leading to abandonment by people with money and agency, which zeroes out the budget for climate remediation and resiliency where it is most needed.

The insurance sector is part of the finance industry, and it is disinvesting in climate-endagered places and instead doubling down on its bets on fossil fuels. We can't rely on the insurance sector to discipline other industries by generating "price signals" about the true underlying climate risk. And insurance doesn't just invest in fossil fuels – they're also a major buyer of municipal and state bonds, which means they're part of the "bond vigilante" investors whose decisions constrain the ability of cities to raise and spend money for climate remediation.

When American cities, territories and regions can't float bonds, they historically get taken over and handed to an unelected "control board" who represents distant creditors, not citizens. This is especially true when the people who live in those places are Black or brown – think Puerto Rico or Detroit or Flint. These control board administrators make creditors whole by tearing the people apart.

This is the real doom loop: insurers pull out of poor places threatened by climate disasters. They invest in the fossil fuels that worsen those disasters. They join with bond vigilantes to force disinvestment from infrastructure maintenance and resiliency in those places. Then, the next climate disaster creates more uninsured losses. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Finance and insurance are betting heavily on climate risk modeling �� not to avert this crisis, but to ensure that their finances remain intact though it. What's more, it won't work. As climate effects get bigger, they get less predictable – and harder to avoid. The point of insurance is spreading risk, not reducing it. We shouldn't and can't rely on insurance creating price-signals to reduce our climate risk.

But the climate doom-loop can be put in reverse – not by market spending, but by public spending. As Arun writes, we need to create "a global investment architecture that is safe for spending":

https://tanjasail.wordpress.com/2023/10/06/a-world-safe-for-spending/

Public investment in emissions reduction and resiliency can offset climate risk, by reducing future global warming and by making places better prepared to endure the weather and other events that are locked in by past emissions. A just transition will "loosen liquidity constraints on investment in communities made vulnerable by the financial system."

Austerity is a bad investment strategy. Failure to maintain and improve infrastructure doesn't just shift costs into the future, it increases those costs far in excess of any rational discount based on the time value of money. Public institutions should discipline markets, not the other way around. Don't give Wall Street a veto over our climate spending. A National Investment Authority could subordinate markets to human thriving:

https://democracyjournal.org/arguments/industrial-policy-requires-public-not-just-private-equity/

Insurance need not be pitted against human survival. Saving the cities and regions whose bonds are held by insurance companies is good for those companies: "Breaking the climate risk doom loop is the best disaster insurance policy money can buy."

I found Arun's work to be especially bracing because of the book I'm touring now, The Lost Cause, a solarpunk novel set in a world in which vast public investment is being made to address the climate emergency that is everywhere and all at once:

https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250865939/the-lost-cause

There is something profoundly hopeful about the belief that we can do something about these foreseeable disasters – rather than remaining frozen in place until the disaster is upon us and it's too late. As Rebecca Solnit says, inhabiting this place in your imagination is "Completely delightful. Neither utopian nor dystopian, it portrays life in SoCal in a future woven from our successes (Green New Deal!), failures (climate chaos anyway), and unresolved conflicts (old MAGA dudes). I loved it."

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/11/28/re-re-reinsurance/#useless-price-signals

[wishlikes]

Moments in Leverage (2008) that I definitely feel Very Normal about:

In the Mile High Job when Hardison realizes he's about to hear his entire team die over comms his team's lives depend very immediately on him

In the 12-Step Job when Eliot and Hardison have to defuse the car bomb and Eliot's hand shakes

In the Beantown Bailout Job when Eliot tells Nate "I hope you know what you're doing" when he KNOWS he's about to fake his death. WHy would you do him like that lmao

Speaking of, the 5 seconds where Nate fully believes he just got Eliot killed. This may have been a formative moment for me, holy shit

The almost-kiss at the end of the Two Live Crew Job. Mostly because it's the only almost-kiss I've ever seen that doesn't give me second hand embarrassment. It's respectful of both parties and just... sad.

In the Lost Heir Job when Eliot spots the shooter and screams Nate's name.

Eliot's pretty much constant fear for Hardison's life in the Gone Fishin' Job which Hardison Does Not appear to pick up on at all

Also the rest of the team's faces when the bad guy is like "oh yeah, i had those guys 'taken care of' if you know what i mean". The way Parker's voice shakes when she confirms she hasn't heard from them

No seriously, Eliot's thought process very clearly being "Get on the train. Please just get on the train. Screw everything else, I need to get you out of danger first" when Hardison starts figuring things out and chooses doing the right thing over personal safety. And Eliot's face, even as he accepts and respects that choice.

Eliot spends another entire episode in basically constant fear in the Big Bang Job, except instead of loud and angry, he's quiet and still, and WHY don't they carry this more thoroughly into the San Lorenzo Job???? Nate puts on a very good "look at me, not him" show but not THAT good!!!

The Long Way Down Job. Parker wanting to do the right thing. Her conversation with Eliot. I'm not insane about this one so much as I'm just crying really hard.

The Van Gogh Job! Also crying very hard! Holy fuck

The round of hugs at the end of the Grave Danger Job

Literally all of Eliot's behavior after getting drugged in the Queen's Gambit Job lol. Hugging Hardison. Immediately pushing him away. "I bet you wanna punch some bad guys." "...You know where some are?"

The Rundown Job. Just. All of it.

Listen. I know it's just a story Nate's telling to push all of Sterling's buttons. But the very concept of Parker living just long enough to watch Hardison and Eliot die before she bleeds out too is AAAAAAAAAAA *blows up*

Also. Sterling's FURY at Nate for getting them killed. And he's not even angry he got played, once he figures it out. He's just. Exhausted and relieved and maybe kinda numb

[meret118]

ETA: "But it makes sense when you realize his goal is to create something like Russia where the economy is run by a few oligarchs loyal to him," Chakrabarti added. "Creating that state is hard in a large, dynamic, powerful economy with too many actors who can oppose him. So he's accelerating concentrating money and power into the hands of his loyalists while he crashes the rest out."

Responding to this, Ball asserted that "at this point, until proven otherwise, the primary actor in the government and the economy is actually Elon, so I think it makes sense to think of Elon's incentives here and what he may actually want to accomplish."

"If you think back at the last economic crashes—both in Covid and in the 2008 financial crash—while initially everyone suffered, including the rich, out of both, the rich were able to buy up assets on the cheap and emerged even wealthier and more powerful than before," she noted.

"So in 2008, not only did they get their own custom bailout, but they were able to buy housing stock at absurdly low prices," Ball recalled. "The rich got richer than ever, inequality skyrocketed, and the big banks got bigger than ever."

"Same deal with the Covid-era recession," she continued. "So, while again, everyone suffered initially, there was a huge bailout package which, yes, did benefit ordinary people, but if you look at who came out really on top... you could see people like Elon Musk, people like Jeff Bezos, people like Mark Zuckerberg getting far wealthier. Their net worths, which were already very high, skyrocketed beyond anyone's wildest dreams."

“To understand the federal government, it is like a corporate takeover at scale, but one where the company is actually in much worse shape than any commercial company could ever be,” Musk said at the conference, reported CNN’s Hadas Gold.

Musk then went on to say that “logically we should prioritize anything that can reasonably be privatized,” including public services such as the postal service and Amtrak.

Last month, officials with the United States Postal Service flagged that the Trump administration was looking to dissolve the organization’s governing board and place it under the control of the Commerce Department and Secretary Howard Lutnick. Experts believe doing so would likely violate federal law.

-------

It's vulture capitalism of an entire country. I don't know why I'm surprised. It's the same thing big oil is doing to the entire planet. And none of them care how many people they kill.

Do the republicans in congress realize when the stock market crashes like it's 1929 they'll lose their money too?

[azspot]

As a result, those truly responsible for the hollowing out of America are completely obscure to their victims. QAnon and other conspiracy theories, such as birtherism, emerged out of right-wing populism in the wake of the financial crisis of 2008. That crisis and its aftermath is a critical moment in the origin stories of Steve Bannon and other key influencers of the right-wing conspiracy metaverse. And so it is useful to consider the Tea Party’s diagnosis at the time. Right-wing populists understood that something had gone very wrong with the American constitutional republic but evinced no serious engagement with how power operates today. The complex problems of the financial, real estate, and health care sectors, all against the backdrop of global financial and trade flows, were reduced to a caricatured platform focusing on the constitutionality of laws and on lowering taxes. Many Tea Party proposals called for restrictions on legislative activities that had long gone extinct in practice, and completely ignored the displacement of power to outside the public sector. In 2012, Mitt Romney was hurt by his association with the “big bankers” and “Wall Street types” who had sought a bailout, but there was no sense that his critics on the right actually understood how a company like Bain Capital had operated or why it might be bad for America. Popular right-wing politics in America has almost become defined by its ignorance of how power and money operate today.

The New Control Society

[thetimeicansee]

This System is Set Up for Profit

The push by Senate and house Democrats to prioritize a rejection against the progressive left should be sounding the alarms for everyone who even remotely considers themselves liberal.

Our media is owned by corporations who twist the story to cater to their needs, be it deifying Trump or praising the Democrat electorate. Whomever offers them the best deal gets their sway, and that sway is the memory of the American people.

Let's get some things straight, the economy was not good for the last 4 years. The economy was not good for the last 8 years. The economy was not good for the last 20 years. The economy has had its ups and downs, of course, but who has profited and benefited from the 2008 bank and automotive bailout? Who has benefited from the 2002 and 2017 tax cuts? What economy has been "good" when the Democrats have insisted that we are living the dream.

You couldn't afford a house 4 years ago, even as stimulus checks flooded the population, a measly $600-$2000 was not going to change anyone's lives. And less than 5 years later, that injection of funds is dry. Even those who sought to save that money have already had to spend it as companies raised prices for "supply chain" reasons and, despite said chains being reestablished, never went back down. We have been leeched dry.

And it is very important to remember that we were allowed to be hollowed out under the Democrats owning the house, the Senate and the presidency in the first two years of Biden's administration.

Yes the problems were not so bad in 2010, but that's the funny way problems work: They get bigger over time. The place we are now, even with Trump's tariffs seeming like an oddity, has always been an inevitability. The choice between a wine glass of poison or a bullet to the brain is hardly a choice, but we have been so inundated with false choices for nearly a century that we can't even tell the difference anymore.

The Democrats are still seeking self enrichment and the enrichment of their donors. If the Democrats are allowed back into power, it will stabilize the monopoly money circulating in their fake economy on Wall Street and will reestablish and cement corporate control. If we go backwards, it will not get better. We need to take this time, this chance now, to change the trajectory.

I honestly have no hope for us. I don't think this will help in any way. I don't see us actually being saved. I see us returning to being ravaged by this oligarchy who have changed out their red hats for blue ties because their control hinges on market stability. Meanwhile, people would rather go back to their memory of better than try to shake things up in favor of something genuinely good. And the Democrats rely on the desire for boring over benefit.

Even in their own memo from the Moderate Democrat coalition, they have clearly said they see their greatest threat as being Leftists and Progressives, not MAGA. Even if you don't see the image of the Left, as a liberal you can't agree with this perspective. Not without fundamentally compromising all your beliefs you supposedly held.

[longwindedbore]

US consumers could be reaching their breaking point. After dealing with elevated inflation and the highest interest rates in decades, they’re starting to rein in their spending.

**************************************

More than 70% of the economy is driven by consumer consumption.

The Nepo-baby Finance Bros have siphoned off all of what once was disposable income to fund their stock market hyperinflation game.

The easiest reset is to let the stock market collapse and wipe out half of the speculators as was the outcome in 1929.

Then make Systemic Changes. Unlike 2008, this time use any bailout to benefit the general population.

Break up the hegemonic banks and corporations by reinstituting anti-trust laws.

Extend SSI and Medicare for true single-payer healthcare and pension programs.

Introduce some form of UBI as a replacement for unemployment insurance and workers comp.

It would be a start. Something that a Dark Brandon could use nstitute with super majorities in Congress.

[rachelraygifs]

Thinking about the way xenophobia, jingoism, and racism combined in the american car market from the 90s to their bailout during 2008 is so funny. American car companies (and their weird die-hards) were all like: 'We make real cars for real men that really drive and are masculine unlike those queer asians and europeans' and then proceed to roll out some of the worst performing vehicles you've ever seen

[darkmaga-returns]

February 10, 2025

China Urged To End Successful Policies

In a variant of the Sowing Doubt About China - But At What Cost? propaganda scheme, the New York Times makes the (somewhat racist) claim that China lacks the capability to turn talent into innovation:

What DeepSeek’s Success Says About China’s Ability to Nurture Talent (archived) - New York Times, Feb 10 2025

The subtitle reveals the core thesis:

China produces a vast number of STEM graduates, but it hasn’t been known for innovation. Cultural and political factors may help explain why.

In a globalized world the innovation ability of a country can be measured by the number of global patents it files.

China, which the NYT says is not known for innovation, is by far leading the pack.

One might argue that China, with four times the population of the United States, should have innovated even more than that. But seen under this aspect the U.S. is also far from the top.

Per million inhabitants China filed 1.2 patents per year while the United States filed 1.5. But the real leaders here are South Korea with 5.5 patents per year per million people followed by Japan with 3.3/y/million.

Real world numbers are not sufficient to support the NYT's central thesis. That is why it barely mentions some. Its argument comes down to a political one:

Pavel Durov, the founder of the messaging platform Telegram, said last month that fierce competition in Chinese schools had fueled the country’s successes in artificial intelligence. “If the U.S. doesn’t reform its education system, it risks ceding tech leadership to China,” he wrote online. The reality is more complicated. Yes, China has invested heavily in education, especially in science and technology, which has helped nurture a significant pool of talent, key to its ambition of becoming a world leader in A.I. by 2025. But outside of the classroom, those graduates must also contend with obstacles that include a grinding corporate culture and the political whims of the ruling Communist Party. Under its current top leader, Xi Jinping, the party has emphasized control, rather than economic growth, and has been willing to crack down on tech firms it deems too influential.

If that is indeed so why is it supposed to be bad?

Is it really healthy for a country to have Apple, Nvidia, Microsoft, Amazon and Alphabet (Google) leading in Market Cap? The author fails to follow that question.

She instead misleads about the alleged crack-down:

Beijing has blessed the A.I. sector — for now. But in 2020, after deciding that it had too little control over major companies like Alibaba, it launched a sweeping, yearslong crackdown on the Chinese tech industry.

The crack-down against Alibaba owner Jack Ma came when he tried to expand Alibaba into the so called fin-tech business.

Juggling with credit and various derivatives thereof is a part of the economy that is better to be kept under control. The 2008 mortgage credit crisis and the following government bailout of private banks have taught as much. Pouring money and talent into a sector that is not productive and carries high risk is not in any societies' best interest.

[misfitwashere]

Autocracy and Poverty

Trump and Vance bring them together

Timothy Snyder

Oct 06, 2024

When I am on media, television hosts ask how democracy is relevant to people who are voting on kitchen-table issues.  That’s easy. 

When Trump destroys our democracy, he will also destroy our economy. 

Autocracy will bring poverty.

Think about the politicians Trump idolizes, Vladimir Putin in Russia and Viktor Orbán in Hungary.  The first undid a democracy through fake emergencies, the second through persistent constitutional abuse.  It is not hard to see why Trump likes them. 

Now consider the Russian and Hungarian economies.  Russia sits on hugely valuable natural resources, and yet is a poor country.  The profits from its oil and gas are in the hands of a few oligarchs.  Hungary sits in the middle of the European Union, the most successful trade project of all time.  And yet Hungarians are poorer than their neighbors, in part because the Orbán regime corruptly channels EU resources to friendly oligarchs.

The lesson is clear.  Democracy is a method of checking corrupt rulers.  When there is no functioning democracy, corruption is unchecked. 

And democracy is an element of a more fundamental guarantor of prosperity, the rule of law.  In Hungary and Russia, the rule of law has been bent and broken, to the benefit of the few, and to the detriment of the many. 

Ending the rule of law is the Trump-Vance platform. 

Trump is running as a candidate who has attempted a coup against constitutional rule. Vance has already said, multiple times, that law does not govern who leads the country, and that he would have supported Trump’s coup attempt.

The rule of law begins from the principle that we are all equally subject to to it. Trump promises to weaponize the law to immunize himself and his supporters and to pursue his political opponents.  Those who worked with him in the White House believe him. 

Laws are executed by trained civil servants. Trump and Vance back a plan to fire the forty thousand federal employees who now execute the law and replace them with forty thousand loyalist hacks.  That is Project 2025.

It doesn't take much imagination to see where this leads.  Here are five quick examples.

1.  The very rich will not be taxed, but you will be taxed more. The hardest thing the IRS does is to tax the wealthy.  In an atmosphere of lawlessness and favoritism, this will become impossible.  Insofar as the federal government runs at all, it will be by taxing the middle class.

2.  The banks can collapse.  As we saw in 2008, our financial system is held together by a very thin tissue of regulation.  Unless laws are enforced, as they won't be under a Trump-Vance administration, the overadventurous will very likely draw us all into another financial disaster.  The bailout will be paid for by the average taxpayer because the rich won’t be taxed (see number 1).

3.  Americans will be at risk of losing their benefits.  Social Security and all the rest depend upon a functioning federal bureaucracy, which is exactly what Project 2025 guarantees that we will not have.  Americans take for granted federal institutions, from VA Hospitals to the insurance of bank accounts (see number 2). 

4.  The stock market can crash.  It depends upon the laws that prevent insider trading and other abuses.  If these laws are applied selectively, and if the people who used to enforce them have been fired, then corrupt investors will win while others lose out.  After a time, the stock market loses its prestige, investors go elsewhere, and everyone loses. (And those who were treating their investments as cushioning to their retirement benefits are now poor: see number 3).

5.  Businesses will get stuck.  Doing business depends upon all sorts of interactions with the federal government.  When the federal government loses its civil servants, much of this will stop happening.  Or, worse, companies with personal connections will be able to continue functioning without following any rules, while others will grind to a halt.  This means millions of people losing their jobs. (And it is now hard for businesses to raise money: see number 4).

This list could go on.  The collapse of the economy is not a bug of autocracy, but a feature. 

There is an autocratic logic to economic failure. When nothing works, when law does not matter, when elections are irrelevant, the only way Americans will be able to get anything done is by appealing to those who have power.  We will have to give bribes to the corrupt and hope for favors from the top. 

Once we behave like this, we get used to the idea that only the leader can fix things, which is of course what Trump likes to say.  And so the circle closes and the new regime is installed.

The new autocracy is confirmed by our new poverty. That is, in any event, the Trump-Vance plan.

They are talented politicians, and they have an alternative to democracy and prosperity, which is autocracy and poverty. Whether they bring America this new regime is up to us.

(Please share this post with anyone you think could be helped by its message.)

[thatstormygeek]

Trump didn’t win simply because he is a sui generis grifter. Democrats gave him many openings to spread his poison. It was all utterly predictable.

Even more appalling, Harris welcomed Dick and Liz Cheney into the fold. I was in Madison Square Garden during Trump’s full-house rally on Oct. 27. Trump and other speakers had a field day ridiculing Harris for joining forces with the architect of the disastrous Iraq War (far more for Iraqis of course). It’s an open question of whether Democrats are that dumb or incompetent to think they could win over a significant number of Republican women from what is a full-blown cult. It's the same disastrous strategy Clinton pulled in 2016. "For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia," Chuck Schumer proclaimed in 2016. Or maybe this is who the Democrats are. In thrall to their billionaire masters, they are unwilling and unable to offer their base any sense of economic relief. It’s not like they haven’t done it before, though. Obama electrified voters in 2008 by promising to move past the “war on terror” while providing a helping hand from those knocked down by the Great Recession. They came out in droves, giving him a near-landslide victory. But you have to deliver, and Obama kicked his base in the face with trillion-dollar bailouts for Wall Street while abandoning Main Street.Black turnout in Wisconsin cratered from around 78 percent in 2012 to the mid-40s in 2016. After Hillary Clinton lost the election, many Black people in Milwaukee told reporters they didn’t vote because they were exhausted and demoralized. They mobilized twice before and in eight years “nothing had changed.”

[mostlysignssomeportents]

This day in history

#15yrsago HOWTO make a packing tape ghost https://makezine.com/article/craft/how-to-packing-tape-ghost-sculptures/

#10yrsago Animation explains the dangers of Computercop, the malware that US police agencies distribute to the public https://web.archive.org/web/20141003115913/http://fusion.net/video/19094/who-needs-the-nsa-anyone-could-spy-on-your-kids-thanks-to-computercop/

#10yrsago Mobile malware infections race through Hong Kong’s Umbrella Revolution https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/10/year-of-the-rat-chinas-malware-war-on-activists-goes-mobile/

#10yrsago Larry “Wide Stance” Craig busted (again) https://www.loweringthebar.net/2014/10/larry-craig-cant-catch-a-break.html

#5yrsago Straws are a distraction: how the plastics industry successfully got you to blame yourself for pollution https://theintercept.com/2019/10/03/plastics-industry-plastic-pollution/

#5yrsago Resource Generation: rich kids who are determined to give away their parents’ money and make America more fair and equal https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/money-and-power/a29008841/rich-kids-revolution-resource-generation/,/a>

#5yrsago CN Tower’s management company claims that any picture of the landmark building is a trademark violation https://memex.craphound.com/2019/10/03/cn-towers-management-company-claims-that-any-picture-of-the-landmark-building-is-a-trademark-violation/

#5yrsago What happened to the 2008 bailout money? https://www.propublica.org/article/the-bailout-was-11-years-ago-were-still-tracking-every-penny

#5yrsago Tiktok’s internal policies are both weird and terrible https://www.wired.com/story/tiktok-time/

#5yrsago “I just love to solve problems”: how people who work at predatory lenders avoid thinking about the pain they inflict https://newrepublic.com/article/155212/worked-capital-one-five-years-justified-piling-debt-poor-customers

#5yrsago Adversarial Interoperability https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/10/adversarial-interoperability

#1yrago Google's enshittification memos https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/03/not-feeling-lucky/#fundamental-laws-of-economics

Tor Books as just published two new, free LITTLE BROTHER stories: VIGILANT, about creepy surveillance in distance education; and SPILL, about oil pipelines and indigenous landback.

[unpluggedfinancial]

Bitcoin: The Immune System of Finance

In 2008, the global financial system suffered a massive shock. The collapse of major financial institutions, reckless risk-taking, and the subsequent bailout by governments exposed the deep-rooted flaws in our traditional financial structure. This crisis wasn't just a temporary setback—it was a symptom of a chronically ill system, one plagued by corruption, opacity, and centralized control. It was in this moment of failure that Bitcoin was conceived, emerging as a powerful immune response to a diseased financial world.

Just as our immune system protects us from pathogens, Bitcoin acts as a shield against the viruses of financial manipulation and centralized control. When established banks and governments failed us, Bitcoin offered a revolutionary alternative: a way to safeguard wealth from the contagion of irresponsible monetary policies and opaque institutions. While critics may point out potential drawbacks of Bitcoin, these pale in comparison to the systemic, far-reaching flaws of our current financial system.

Consider the following:

Inflation vs. Scarcity: Central banks can print money at will, devaluing currencies and eroding savings. Bitcoin's fixed supply of 21 million coins acts as an antidote to this inflationary disease, preserving purchasing power over time.

Centralization vs. Decentralization: Traditional finance concentrates power in the hands of a few institutions, making the entire system vulnerable to their mistakes or malfeasance. Bitcoin's decentralized network distributes power among thousands of nodes, creating a robust system that can withstand attacks and corruption.

Opacity vs. Transparency: The inner workings of banks and financial institutions are often shrouded in secrecy. Bitcoin's public blockchain offers unprecedented transparency, allowing anyone to verify transactions and audit the system.

Exclusion vs. Inclusion: Millions remain unbanked or underbanked in the current system. Bitcoin provides financial services to anyone with internet access, fostering true financial inclusion.

Bailouts vs. Personal Responsibility: The 2008 crisis showed how taxpayers can be forced to bail out failing banks. In the Bitcoin ecosystem, there are no bailouts—each participant is responsible for their own financial decisions.

While detractors may point to Bitcoin's volatility or energy consumption, these issues are either temporary growing pains or vastly overstated when compared to the enormous resources consumed by the traditional financial system. Moreover, Bitcoin's ability to transfer value globally, instantly, and at low cost far outweighs these concerns.

The immune system analogy extends even further when we consider how Bitcoin is adopted and defended by its community. Just as immune cells recognize and remember pathogens, Bitcoin’s supporters—miners, developers, and users—work collectively to protect and strengthen the network. When threats arise, such as regulatory crackdowns, hacking attempts, or misinformation, the community responds, adapting to ensure the network’s continued health and growth. This collective effort is similar to how an immune system evolves to counter new challenges, constantly learning and improving its defenses.

Moreover, Bitcoin’s limited supply of 21 million coins serves as a safeguard against the inflationary practices of traditional fiat systems. Central banks have the power to print money at will, often devaluing currencies and eroding purchasing power. Bitcoin’s scarcity is akin to the body’s natural regulation mechanisms that maintain balance and stability. In the same way that our immune system prevents harmful overreactions, Bitcoin’s monetary policy prevents the reckless expansion of supply that leads to economic instability.

Another aspect of Bitcoin’s immune-like qualities is its transparency and openness. The Bitcoin blockchain is a public ledger, allowing anyone to verify transactions and ensuring that no single entity can manipulate the system without detection. This transparency is similar to how the immune system communicates signals throughout the body, ensuring that all parts are aware of potential threats. The open-source nature of Bitcoin’s code allows developers from around the world to contribute, audit, and improve the network, much like how the immune system relies on a diverse array of cells and proteins to function effectively.

Bitcoin also embodies the concept of decentralization, much like how the immune system is distributed throughout the body rather than centralized in a single organ. This decentralization is a critical strength, making Bitcoin resistant to attacks and failures. There is no central point of control or failure, just as there is no single organ responsible for immune defense. This structure ensures that even if parts of the network are compromised, the overall system remains resilient and capable of functioning.

The resilience of Bitcoin has been tested numerous times since its inception. From exchange hacks and regulatory bans to forks and scalability debates, the network has faced numerous challenges. Each time, it has emerged stronger, with its community adapting and evolving to ensure its survival. This is reminiscent of how the immune system builds immunity over time, learning from past encounters to better respond to future threats. Bitcoin’s ability to withstand and grow through adversity is a testament to its design and the strength of its community.

In conclusion, Bitcoin can be seen as the financial system’s immune response—a decentralized, adaptive, and resilient alternative to traditional finance. It emerged in the wake of a systemic crisis, offering a way to protect individual sovereignty, maintain transparency, and build a more robust and fair financial ecosystem. Just like the immune system, Bitcoin is not without its challenges, but its strength lies in its ability to adapt, evolve, and provide a defense against the weaknesses of the traditional financial world. It represents a shift towards a more transparent, secure, and decentralized future, one that empowers individuals rather than relying on centralized institutions that have repeatedly shown their vulnerabilities.

As our financial immune system, Bitcoin doesn't just offer an alternative—it provides a cure for many of the ailments afflicting our current financial structure. It empowers individuals, promotes transparency, and creates a more resilient economic ecosystem. While no system is perfect, Bitcoin represents a quantum leap forward in financial technology and philosophy. The traditional financial system has had centuries to prove its worth, and yet it continues to fail us repeatedly. Bitcoin, in just over a decade, has already demonstrated its potential to rewrite the rules of finance. As more people recognize the inherent weaknesses of the old system and the strengths of this new paradigm, Bitcoin's role as the immune system of finance will only grow stronger.

In conclusion, while Bitcoin may have its challenges, they are mere speed bumps on the road to a more equitable, transparent, and robust financial future. The real disease lies in our current system—a system that has repeatedly shown itself to be vulnerable to corruption, manipulation, and catastrophic failure. Bitcoin offers us not just an alternative, but a cure—a way to inoculate ourselves against the financial ills that have plagued us for too long. It's time we embrace this powerful financial immune system and build a healthier economic future for all.

Take Action Towards Financial Independence

If this article has sparked your interest in the transformative potential of Bitcoin, there's so much more to explore! Dive deeper into the world of financial independence and revolutionize your understanding of money by following my blog and subscribing to my YouTube channel.

🌐 Blog: Unplugged Financial Blog Stay updated with insightful articles, detailed analyses, and practical advice on navigating the evolving financial landscape. Learn about the history of money, the flaws in our current financial systems, and how Bitcoin can offer a path to a more secure and independent financial future.

📺 YouTube Channel: Unplugged Financial Subscribe to our YouTube channel for engaging video content that breaks down complex financial topics into easy-to-understand segments. From in-depth discussions on monetary policies to the latest trends in cryptocurrency, our videos will equip you with the knowledge you need to make informed financial decisions.

👍 Like, subscribe, and hit the notification bell to stay updated with our latest content. Whether you're a seasoned investor, a curious newcomer, or someone concerned about the future of your financial health, our community is here to support you on your journey to financial independence.

Support the Cause

If you enjoyed what you read and believe in the mission of spreading awareness about Bitcoin, I would greatly appreciate your support. Every little bit helps keep the content going and allows me to continue educating others about the future of finance.

Donate Bitcoin: bc1qpn98s4gtlvy686jne0sr8ccvfaxz646kk2tl8lu38zz4dvyyvflqgddylk

[darkeagleruins]

From Peter St Onge: Wall Street quietly dodges $75 billion in bailout costs while exempting thousands of banks from rules meant to protect taxpayers.

Banks learned their lesson from 2008: Buy the Bailouts ahead of time. And Buy them in the Dark.