#economic meltdown

[mfi-miami]

My Loan Modification Application Keeps Getting Rejected

Why Does My Lender Keep Rejecting My Loan Modification Application. What Am I Doing Wrong? Applying for a loan modification requires you to think like a chess player. Homeowners call us on a regular basis befuddled and confused. They claim their lender keeps rejecting their loan modification application. They believe they qualify for a loan modification. Yet, the lender keeps rejecting their…

[beckiboos]

Actually let me fix it for you. Give $600 to a poor person and they will spend the money to improve their lives quite quickly usually on highly taxable goods that boosts the economy and helps pay for public services and keeps money in circulation befitting everyone. Give $600 to a rich man as they don’t need it they will put in a off shore bank account to avoid paying taxes on it hoarding it away from the economy, possibly for their whole lives if they are rich enough and that’s $600 less in the economy, which is true for every dollar a rich person never spends in their lifetime

So poor people don’t deserve to have money?!

[signode-blog]

The 2008 Market Crash: Causes, Impacts, and Lessons Learned

l. Introduction The 2008 market crash stands as one of the most significant financial upheavals in modern history, reshaping economies and livelihoods around the globe. Understanding the causes and impacts of this crisis is crucial for navigating future economic challenges. ll. Background of the 2008 Market Crash A. Economic conditions leading up to the crash Prior to 2008, the United States…

[communistkenobi]

“I use bro and dude in a gender neutral way” okay but the fact that dude and bro can be argued to be gender neutral at all is because of patriarchy lol. ‘man’ is positioned as the ideal default and can be used to stand in for humanity in general (“mankind” “the rights of men” etc), ‘woman’ is a lesser variant of human being and thus can only be used to refer to women (that’s why this argument gets even more absurd if you swap out dude/bro for ‘girl/girlie/sis’). And this gender neutral male default is still obviously fucking gendered, words like “mankind” are deeply loaded, gendered, racialised terms and these same loaded assumptions inform how other masculine terms are universalised and used in a ‘gender neutral’ way. White bourgeois masculinity is being imposed as universal, and through this universalising process is considered neutral, but what is ‘neutral’ is itself a matter of political and economic domination, an inherent part of which is patriarchy. We don’t arrive at “brother” as a universal term by accident

and like I thought we’d figured out that actual gender neutral language is the way forward, I remember all those insufferable debates from a couple years ago where reactionaries were having a collective meltdown about people using ‘they’ as a singular pronoun (which they’re still mad about lol!). we even got some cishet people to start using the word ‘partner’ instead of boy/girlfriend/wife/husband. Even if we didn’t, I think you are operating in bad faith in trans spaces if you adopt such a cavalier attitude to the things people want and don’t want to be called. Like sorry to do another type of universalism but trans people are a group that have pretty sensitive and complicated relationships to gendered language for reasons that should be incredibly obvious to everyone, even if you use bro/dude in ‘gender neutral’ ways, you don’t get to decide how other trans people feel about those terms and you definitely don’t get to dismiss their feelings with “calm down bro��

so like you should interrogate why it’s even possible to make this argument to begin with, especially because you are using this patriarchal default to misgender trans women only to then tell them to calm down because it’s ‘gender neutral,’ as if trans women somehow aren’t aware of these patriarchal linguistic assumptions and don’t deal with it every day of their lives

[chilledstrawberrysoda]

Gansey having the most mundane conversation about the ecological effects and economics of local produce while having an internal meltdown over Ronan wrecking the pig immediately after receiving a dick pick from Ronan has to be the best scene in the dream thieves.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

How finfluencers destroyed the housing and lives of thousands of people

For the rest of May, my bestselling solarpunk utopian novel THE LOST CAUSE (2023) is available as a $2.99, DRM-free ebook!

The crash of 2008 imparted many lessons to those of us who were only dimly aware of finance, especially the problems of complexity as a way of disguising fraud and recklessness. That was really the first lesson of 2008: "financial engineering" is mostly a way of obscuring crime behind a screen of technical jargon.

This is a vital principle to keep in mind, because obscenely well-resourced "financial engineers" are on a tireless, perennial search for opportunities to disguise fraud as innovation. As Riley Quinn says, "Any time you hear 'fintech,' substitute 'unlicensed bank'":

https://pluralistic.net/2023/05/01/usury/#tech-exceptionalism

But there's another important lesson to learn from the 2008 disaster, a lesson that's as old as the South Seas Bubble: "leverage" (that is, debt) is a force multiplier for fraud. Easy credit for financial speculation turns local scams into regional crime waves; it turns regional crime into national crises; it turns national crises into destabilizing global meltdowns.

When financial speculators have easy access to credit, they "lever up" their wagers. A speculator buys your house and uses it for collateral for a loan to buy another house, then they make a bet using that house as collateral and buy a third house, and so on. This is an obviously terrible practice and lenders who extend credit on this basis end up riddling the real economy with rot – a single default in the chain can ripple up and down it and take down a whole neighborhood, town or city. Any time you see this behavior in debt markets, you should batten your hatches for the coming collapse. Unsurprisingly, this is very common in crypto speculation, where it's obscured behind the bland, unpronounceable euphemism of "re-hypothecation":

https://www.coindesk.com/consensus-magazine/2023/05/10/rehypothecation-may-be-common-in-traditional-finance-but-it-will-never-work-with-bitcoin/

Loose credit markets often originate with central banks. The dogma that holds that the only role the government has to play in tuning the economy is in setting interest rates at the Fed means the answer to a cooling economy is cranking down the prime rate, meaning that everyone earns less money on their savings and are therefore incentivized to go and risk their retirement playing at Wall Street's casino.

The "zero interest rate policy" shows what happens when this tactic is carried out for long enough. When the economy is built upon mountains of low-interest debt, when every business, every stick of physical plant, every car and every home is leveraged to the brim and cross-collateralized with one another, central bankers have to keep interest rates low. Raising them, even a little, could trigger waves of defaults and blow up the whole economy.

Holding interest rates at zero – or even flipping them to negative, so that your savings lose value every day you refuse to flush them into the finance casino – results in still more reckless betting, and that results in even more risk, which makes it even harder to put interest rates back up again.

This is a morally and economically complicated phenomenon. On the one hand, when the government provides risk-free bonds to investors (that is, when the Fed rate is over 0%), they're providing "universal basic income for people with money." If you have money, you can park it in T-Bills (Treasury bonds) and the US government will give you more money:

https://realprogressives.org/mmp-blog-34-responses/

On the other hand, while T-Bills exist and are foundational to the borrowing picture for speculators, ZIRP creates free debt for people with money – it allows for ever-greater, ever-deadlier forms of leverage, with ever-worsening consequences for turning off the tap. As 2008 forcibly reminded us, the vast mountains of complex derivatives and other forms of exotic debt only seems like an abstraction. In reality, these exotic financial instruments are directly tethered to real things in the real economy, and when the faery gold disappears, it takes down your home, your job, your community center, your schools, and your whole country's access to cancer medication:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/08/greek-drug-shortage-worsens

Being a billionaire automatically lowers your IQ by 30 points, as you are insulated from the consequences of your follies, lapses, prejudices and superstitions. As @pixelpusher220@dmv.community says, Elon Musk is what Howard Hughes would have turned into if he hadn't been a recluse:

https://mamot.fr/@pixelpusher220@dmv.community/112457199729198644

The same goes for financiers during periods of loose credit. Loose Fed money created an "everything bubble" that saw the prices of every asset explode, from housing to stocks, from wine to baseball cards. When every bet pays off, you win the game by betting on everything:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_bubble

That meant that the ZIRPocene was an era in which ever-stupider people were given ever-larger sums of money to gamble with. This was the golden age of the "finfluencer" – a Tiktok dolt with a surefire way for you to get rich by making reckless bets that endanger the livelihoods, homes and wellbeing of your neighbors.

Finfluencers are dolts, but they're also dangerous. Writing for The American Prospect, the always-amazing Maureen Tkacik describes how a small clutch of passive-income-brainworm gurus created a financial weapon of mass destruction, buying swathes of apartment buildings and then destroying them, ruining the lives of their tenants, and their investors:

https://prospect.org/infrastructure/housing/2024-05-22-hell-underwater-landlord/

Tcacik's main characters are Matt Picheny, Brent Ritchie and Koteswar “Jay” Gajavelli, who ran a scheme to flip apartment buildings, primarily in Houston, America's fastest growing metro, which also boasts some of America's weakest protections for tenants. These finance bros worked through Gajavelli's company Applesway Investment Group, which levered up his investors' money with massive loans from Arbor Realty Trust, who also originated loans to many other speculators and flippers.

For investors, the scheme was a classic heads-I-win/tails-you-lose: Gajavelli paid himself a percentage of the price of every building he bought, a percentage of monthly rental income, and a percentage of the resale price. This is typical of the "syndicating" sector, which raised $111 billion on this basis:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-housing-bust-comes-for-thousands-of-small-time-investors-3934beb3

Gajavelli and co bought up whole swathes of Houston and other cities, apartment blocks both modest and luxurious, including buildings that had already been looted by previous speculators. As interest rates crept up and the payments for the adjustable-rate loans supporting these investments exploded, Gajavell's Applesway and its subsidiary LLCs started to stiff their suppliers. Garbage collection dwindled, then ceased. Water outages became common – first weekly, then daily. Community rooms and pools shuttered. Lawns grew to waist-high gardens of weeds, fouled with mounds of fossil dogshit. Crime ran rampant, including murders. Buildings filled with rats and bedbugs. Ceilings caved in. Toilets backed up. Hallways filled with raw sewage:

https://pluralistic.net/timberridge

Meanwhile, the value of these buildings was plummeting, and not just because of their terrible condition – the whole market was cooling off, in part thanks to those same interest-rate hikes. Because the loans were daisy-chained, problems with a single building threatened every building in the portfolio – and there were problems with a lot more than one building.

This ruination wasn't limited to Gajavelli's holdings. Arbor lent to multiple finfluencer grifters, providing the leverage for every Tiktok dolt to ruin a neighborhood of their choosing. Arbor's founder, the "flamboyant" Ivan Kaufman, is associated with a long list of bizarre pop-culture and financial freak incidents. These have somehow eclipsed his scandals, involving – you guessed it – buying up apartment buildings and turning them into dangerous slums. Two of his buildings in Hyattsville, MD accumulated 2,162 violations in less than three years.

Arbor graduated from owning slums to creating them, lending out money to grifters via a "crowdfunding" platform that rooked retail investors into the scam, taking advantage of Obama-era deregulation of "qualified investor" restrictions to sucker unsophisticated savers into handing over money that was funneled to dolts like Gajavelli. Arbor ran the loosest book in town, originating mortgages that wouldn't pass the (relatively lax) criteria of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This created an ever-enlarging pool of apartments run by dolts, without the benefit of federal insurance. As one short-seller's report on Arbor put it, they were the origin of an epidemic of "Slumlord Millionaires":

https://viceroyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Arbor-Slumlord-Millionaires-Jan-8-2023.pdf

The private equity grift is hard to understand from the outside, because it appears that a bunch of sober-sided, responsible institutions lose out big when PE firms default on their loans. But the story of the Slumlord Millionaires shows how such a scam could be durable over such long timescales: remember that the "syndicating" sector pays itself giant amounts of money whether it wins or loses. The consider that they finance this with investor capital from "crowdfunding" platforms that rope in naive investors. The owners of these crowdfunding platforms are conduits for the money to make the loans to make the bets – but it's not their money. Quite the contrary: they get a fee on every loan they originate, and a share of the interest payments, but they're not on the hook for loans that default. Heads they win, tails we lose.

In other words, these crooks are intermediaries – they're platforms. When you're on the customer side of the platform, it's easy to think that your misery benefits the sellers on the platform's other side. For example, it's easy to believe that as your Facebook feed becomes enshittified with ads, that advertisers are the beneficiaries of this enshittification.

But the reason you're seeing so many ads in your feed is that Facebook is also ripping off advertisers: charging them more, spending less to police ad-fraud, being sloppier with ad-targeting. If you're not paying for the product, you're the product. But if you are paying for the product? You're still the product:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/01/04/how-to-truth/#adfraud

In the same way: the private equity slumlord who raises your rent, loads up on junk fees, and lets your building disintegrate into a crime-riddled, sewage-tainted, rat-infested literal pile of garbage is absolutely fucking you over. But they're also fucking over their investors. They didn't buy the building with their own money, so they're not on the hook when it's condemned or when there's a forced sale. They got a share of the initial sale price, they get a percentage of your rental payments, so any upside they miss out on from a successful sale is just a little extra they're not getting. If they squeeze you hard enough, they can probably make up the difference.

The fact that this criminal playbook has wormed its way into every corner of the housing market makes it especially urgent and visible. Housing – shelter – is a human right, and no person can thrive without a stable home. The conversion of housing, from human right to speculative asset, has been a catastrophe:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/06/06/the-rents-too-damned-high/

Of course, that's not the only "asset class" that has been enshittified by private equity looters. They love any kind of business that you must patronize. Capitalists hate capitalism, so they love a captive audience, which is why PE took over your local nursing home and murdered your gran:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/02/23/acceptable-losses/#disposable-olds

Homes are the last asset of the middle class, and the grifter class know it, so they're coming for your house. Willie Sutton robbed banks because "that's where the money is" and We Buy Ugly Houses defrauds your parents out of their family home because that's where their money is:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/05/11/ugly-houses-ugly-truth/#homevestor

The plague of housing speculation isn't a US-only phenomenon. We have allies in Spain who are fighting our Wall Street landlords:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/11/24/no-puedo-pagar-no-pagara/#fuckin-aardvarks

Also in Berlin:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/08/16/die-miete-ist-zu-hoch/#assets-v-human-rights

The fight for decent housing is the fight for a decent world. That's why unions have joined the fight for better, de-financialized housing. When a union member spends two hours commuting every day from a black-mold-filled apartment that costs 50% of their paycheck, they suffer just as surely as if their boss cut their wage:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/12/13/i-want-a-roof-over-my-head/#and-bread-on-the-table

The solutions to our housing crises aren't all that complicated – they just run counter to the interests of speculators and the ruling class. Rent control, which neoliberal economists have long dismissed as an impossible, inevitable disaster, actually works very well:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/05/16/mortgages-are-rent-control/#housing-is-a-human-right-not-an-asset

As does public housing:

https://jacobin.com/2023/10/red-vienna-public-affordable-housing-homelessness-matthew-yglesias

There are ways to have a decent home and a decent life without being burdened with debt, and without being a pawn in someone else's highly leveraged casino bet.

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/2024/05/22/koteswar-jay-gajavelli/#if-you-ever-go-to-houston

Image: Boy G/Google Maps (modified) https://pluralistic.net/timberridge

[drdemonprince]

Thousands of people did not just suddenly stop using headphones one day because they felt like it, or because they stopped caring about people with sensory sensitivities like me. No, people stopped using headphones because cell phone manufacturers stopped including headphone jacks in their products. 

My sensory-processing issues are a physical element of my disability that would absolutely still exist in a world without capitalism. Like my poor fine motor control and reduced muscle tone, my sensory processing issues debilitate me: there are tasks I simply cannot perform because of how my body is wired, and this makes me different from most other people in ways that are non-negotiable.  Still, my physical disabilities are worsened quite clearly by capitalism: Because large corporations have both a profit motive and a vested interest in reinvesting those profits into advertisements, and because the internet does not receive public financial support, my daily life is bombarded with bright, noisy, flashing, disruptive advertisements, which makes it far more difficult for me to process relevant information and can swiftly bring me to the verge of a meltdown.  If the internet were funded as a public utility and was therefore not sandblasted in ads, I would be less disabled. If my local streets were less plastered in billboards and littered with junk mail advertising chain restaurants, I would be less disabled. 

Because companies like Apple financially rely upon consumers replacing their phones on an annual basis (despite how unsustainable and murderously cruel continuing to mine cobalt in Sudan for the production of all these new phones is), I must replace my phone regularly. With an updated phone model I lose my headphone jack and have to adapt to a new operating system and layout, and so my sensory issues and executive functioning challenges are exacerbated.  In a world where phones were produced in order to help human beings function rather than to make money, I would be less disabled.  Thanks to capitalism, I cannot exist in public if I am not purchasing anything. I cannot simply be present in a store, coffee shop, or even public plaza, enjoying my surroundings and taking the sight of other people in. I must contribute to the economy in order to justify it. If the brickwork of a nearby building fascinates me and I crave to feel it against my palms, I have to pretend that I wish to buy it, and be prepared to tell anyone who asks that that’s what I intend to do. I can’t even stand on the corner and feel the sun on my face without worrying my neighbors might find it unusual and send the cops.  As an Autistic person, I often can’t fake being a perpetual consumer well enough. My desire to simply elope around my environment and take in new, interesting sensations registers as suspicious or concerningly mentally ill. And so I am further disabled and excluded from public life. 

The full essay is free to read or have narrated to you at drdevonprice.substack.com

[inbabylontheywept]

Following back on the recent fusionposting to run a very technically unqualified intuition I have by you

When talking about baseload power generation, the conversation inevitably turns to nuclear, with a common narrative that certain countries are irrationally afraid of nuclear for not copying the successful policies of their neighbours (usually it's about Germany or Austria needing to emulate France)

What I've wanted to run by you is this viewpoint I've had for a while - that the economics of nuclear power are different from other sources, and that that may better explain the choices of policymakers:

The procurement of nuclear power seems much closer to military procurement in my eyes, with costs stemming from the management of standards, supply chains being inflexible and project/nation-dependent, and the costs of maintaining regional expertise overshadowing the costs that build physical capital.

Can you confirm/disconfirm any of these impressions?

I'm only slightly more qualified than you, unfortunately. I haven't work in the nuclear power sector. I have coworkers that have, and their stories do seem to check out with your descriptions.

Like, in a military style contract, parts might cost 4 times as much as a civilian part, because the military tests the parts much, much more stringently. You don't test the screws at home depot to make sure they match the metal composition, or that their sheer strength matches X, or on and on. You have a baseline level of trust that comes from market forces. But military supplies don't have market forces to work with - there isn't exactly a market for, say, F-35s. So they have to try and catch this manually instead of via crowdsourcing, and the results are painful.

That's military procurement, and I work with that enough to know why it exists. Even if it hurts.

Now, that sound very similar to nuclear power, which also analyzes everything to the T because the cost of failure is so ridiculously high. The coworker I mentioned before that worked for reactor said her first year learn-the-ropes project was doing a report on the safety consequences of swapping the lights from fluorescent to LED in the main office buildings. It was a 200+ page thing going over how the new lights would affect the backup power duration stats, hazards of the new lights vs the old ones (LEDs are less tolereant of undervoltage than fluorescents), things like that. I would imagine that in that case, they probably spent at least 4 or 5 times as much analyzing the impact of the lighting than they actually spent on the lighting.

This drives efficiency oriented people kind of crazy, but the whole point of these systems is not to be efficient. It is to be extremely resistant to failure. Ludicrously, insanely, painfully resistant. Because in the military case, a bad batch of bolts normally worth $40 could make a $35 million plane crash, and in the nuclear case, a meltdown could literally cause trillions of dollars of damage. The Fukushima meltdown is estimated to have caused $200 billion worth of damage, and it was not even close to a worst case scenario.

Anyway, I'm rambling a little, but your intuition seems good to me. I love nuclear power, but people suggesting that we "slash all the red tape around it" scare the shit out of me. They have no idea what they're fucking with, and if we're all very, very lucky, they never will.

[prideprejudce]

There was only 1 billionaire on the submersible. The Pakistani guy with his son are millionaires who have much less money than most American celebrities for example. But people just lying and saying they’re billionaires so they can get excited they died. Touch grass ma’am

are you telling me that your ‘gotcha!’ is the fact that the one guy from Pakistan might have been a millionaire and not a billionaire? even though he likely paid 500k (250k each) for two tickets to the bottom of the ocean? when Pakistan is currently going through an economic meltdown that is so bad that the citizens are fleeing to Europe by the dozens and risking their lives because inflation is at an all time high and there’s literally no jobs anymore?

And this millionaire/billionaire buys a half a million dollar trip down to the bottom of the ocean so he can gawk at the grave sight of poor people who lost their lives over a hundred years ago? that’s the hill you want to die on? that sounds like a fair trade of money to you? that’s your trump card argument? hello??? is there any sign of intelligent life out there???

[beardedmrbean]

Few in the media seemed eager to attend a ceremony last week in Washington, D.C., where the prestigious American Academy of Sciences and Letters was awarding its top intellectual freedom award.

The problem may have been the recipient: Stanford Professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya.

Bhattacharya has spent years being vilified by the media over his dissenting views on the pandemic. As one of the signatories of the 2020 Great Barrington Declaration, he was canceled, censored, and even received death threats.

That open letter called on government officials and public health authorities to rethink the mandatory lockdowns and other extreme measures in light of past pandemics.

All the signatories became targets of an orthodoxy enforced by an alliance of political, corporate, media, and academic groups. Most were blocked on social media despite being accomplished scientists with expertise in this area.

It did not matter that positions once denounced as “conspiracy theories” have been recognized or embraced by many.

Some argued that there was no need to shut down schools, which has led to a crisis in mental illness among the young and the loss of critical years of education. Other nations heeded such advice with more limited shutdowns (including keeping schools open) and did not experience our losses.

Others argued that the virus’s origin was likely the Chinese research lab in Wuhan. That position was denounced by the Washington Post as a “debunked” coronavirus “conspiracy theory.” The New York Times Science and Health reporter Apoorva Mandavilli called any mention of the lab theory “racist.”

Federal agencies now support the lab theory as the most likely based on the scientific evidence.

The Biden administration tried to censor this Stanford doctor, but he won in court

Likewise, many questioned the efficacy of those blue surgical masks and supported natural immunity to the virus — both positions were later recognized by the government.

Others questioned the six-foot rule used to shut down many businesses as unsupported by science. In congressional testimony, Dr. Anthony Fauci recently admitted that the 6-foot rule “sort of just appeared” and “wasn’t based on data.” Yet not only did the rule result in heavily enforced rules (and meltdowns) in public areas, the media further ostracized dissenting critics.

Again, Fauci and other scientists did little to stand up for these scientists or call for free speech to be protected. As I discuss in my new book, “The Indispensable Right,” the result is that we never really had a national debate on many of these issues and the result of massive social and economic costs.

I spoke at the University of Chicago with Bhattacharya and other dissenting scientists in the front row a couple of years ago. After the event, I asked them how many had been welcomed back to their faculties or associations since the recognition of some of their positions.

They all said that they were still treated as pariahs for challenging the groupthink culture.

Now the scientific community is recognizing the courage shown by Bhattacharya and others with its annual Robert J. Zimmer Medal for Intellectual Freedom.

So what about all of those in government, academia, and the media who spent years hounding these scientists?

Universities shred their ethics to aid Biden’s social-media censorship

Biden Administration officials and Democratic members targeted Bhattacharya and demanded his censorship. For example, Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) attacked  Bhattacharya and others who challenged the official narrative during the pandemic. Krishnamoorthi expressed outrage that the scientists were even allowed to testify as “a purveyor of COVID-19 misinformation.”

Journalists and columnists also supported the censorship and blacklisting of these scientists. In the Los Angeles Times, columnist Michael Hiltzik decried how “we’re living in an upside-down world” because Stanford allowed these scientists to speak at a scientific forum. He was outraged that, while “Bhattacharya’s name doesn’t appear in the event announcement,” he was an event organizer. Hiltzik also wrote a column titled “The COVID lab leak claim isn’t just an attack on science, but a threat to public health.” 

Then there are those lionized censors at Twitter who shadow-banned Bhattacharya. As former CEO Parag Agrawal generally explained, the “focus [was] less on thinking about free speech … [but[ who can be heard.”

None of this means that Bhattacharya or others were right in all of their views. Instead, many of the most influential voices in the media, government, and academia worked to prevent this discussion from occurring when it was most needed.

There is still a debate over Bhattacharya’s “herd immunity” theories, but there is little debate over the herd mentality used to cancel him.

The Academy was right to honor Bhattacharya. It is equally right to condemn all those who sought to silence a scientist who is now being praised for resisting their campaign to silence him and others.

[metamatar]

india's hindutva middle class is having a meltdown because the new budget upped capital gains taxes and reduced income taxes. tbf they reduced corporate taxes as well so this isn't income redistribution or anything, but this is perceived as an attack by one of modi's strongest voter bases

The budget increased tax on long-term capital gains on all financial and non-financial assets to 12.5% from 10%. Assets held for over a year are considered long term.

Short-term capital gains will now be taxed at 20% instead of 15%.

The budget has also increased the securities transaction tax on derivatives trading.

This was widely expected, with the Economic Survey released a day earlier raising red flags about rising speculation and growing participation of retail investors in Indian equity markets.

[shadowfromthestarlight]

Yesterday, November 3, 2024, I voted out of love. I surprised myself by doing so this year - I usually vote with a sense of resignation, or to say “screw you” to one side or to both. I went into 2024 expecting to vote out of hate. Hate for the “swamp.” Hate for bureaucracy. Hate for the UN and the World Economic Forum. Hate for people who’d basically tried to kill us for two years during the COVID-19 pandemic while telling us that we were the ones killing our neighbors. Hate for “journalists” who pretended to care about preserving our “democracy” while at the end of the day, always pushing a narrative that supported the mainstream politicians, big pharma, big food, and censorship. I wanted people like that running for the hills. I wanted whoever I voted for to be the candidate who had the biggest chance of sending the “elites” into a total meltdown. I liked Vivek for that job. I liked RFK Jr. If it had to be Trump, so be it… but he hadn’t drained the swamp the first time around.

But then some amazing things started to happen. People with the know-how and the will to drive real, lasting change in government joined Trump’s team. I heard JD Vance didn’t eat seed oils and I got interested. I noticed that Trump was attracting extremely intelligent, independent thinkers - how, unless they believed he was genuine about wanting to work with them and listen to their ideas? I decided that if RFK threw his hat in with Trump, I would, too.

Then he did. And central to their partnership was a desire to end the chronic disease crisis, which, over the past two years, has become one of the most important issues to me. And I saw the hand of God in that. I felt hope. I felt excitement. I felt like maybe this time, I could actually vote for change. Like this time, there was actually a candidate who stood a chance of “draining the swamp.” Like this time, I could actually vote for a better world.

If we win, I will be excited. And not just for me, for the whole country. Even for the people who voted Harris/Walz. Even for the people who voted Harris/Walz because they think people like me are racists and Nazis. I know several people who will be disappointed if we win, and I plan to greet them with a smile. Not a gleeful, gloating, spiteful smile, but one of warmth and welcoming. I want to tell them that things are not just gonna be okay, they’re gonna be more than okay. I want to invite them to see why I’m hopeful for our future. I want to greet them with love.

[tomorrowusa]

« Trump won’t just go away; he'll have to be defeated. And Haley can’t defeat him because she has no answer for the central problem: She needs the support of a group of voters who are religiously devoted to him.

However, I do believe that the longer she stays in the race, the more damage she’ll do to Trump’s bid.

[ … ]

It's probably not her intention, but Haley is providing a service to the nation: a soft launch of reminding voters that Trump is a chaos agent of the highest order who put the nation through a dizzying series of unnecessary crucibles that tested the very durability of our institutions and our ability to withstand his anti-democratic onslaught.

Haley has begun to do the work that Biden and his campaign team will greatly expand on — if they're smart. »

— Charles M. Blow writing in the New York Times.

For some bizarre reason, candidates for the GOP presidential nomination thought they could make headway without criticizing the deeply flawed frontrunner.

When Nikki Haley belatedly started slamming Trump, the public attention devoted to her campaign shot up. It's certainly too late to do her much good, but her attacks on Trump do increase the possibility of him responding in such a way that women voters would find offensive.

If Trump loses this year, the GOP will be in shambles. If the party doesn't disintegrate like the Whigs, it will be looking to somebody who was not tied too closely to Trump. By publicly creating some space between herself and The Orange One, Nikki Haley could be looking ahead to 2028.

In the meantime, the more people attacking Trump from different directions – the better. There's already some indication that Biden, or at least his surrogates, are stepping up attacks on Trump's economic record. Reminding voters that Trump's fumbling of the early pandemic response led to economic meltdown should get more emphasis.

[reality-detective]

I think we're nearing "End Game" "Checkmate" where things are about to get real crazy? 👇

Black Swan Event! The World’s Most Powerful Families Are Crafting Global Chaos – Trump Is Leading the Fight Against a Globalist Cabal!

In the clandestine corridors of power, a sinister plot is unfolding—one that mocks the very democracy and freedom we hold dear. This is not just another historical manipulation, but a shadow war waged by a cabal of power-hungry elites, tracing their bloodlines back to the darkest realms of the Illuminati and the counterfeit AshkeNAZI lineage.

The Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and their ilk have orchestrated every major catastrophe of the 20th and 21st centuries. From the World Wars to economic collapses and the recent pandemic, each disaster serves their ultimate goal: total global domination through chaos and despair.

The United Nations and Israel? Not geopolitical strategies, but key pieces in their grand chess game. Under the guise of international cooperation, these institutions enable the elites to conduct heinous crimes—from human trafficking rings to covert biological warfare on innocent populations. The CIA is merely a puppet in their hands, enforcing their will across the globe, with Ukraine becoming the latest battleground where their twisted agenda plays out.

But it doesn’t stop there. The elites have infiltrated every corner of society—from the financial crashes they orchestrate to the dictators they install. Even Google, Facebook, and YouTube are weapons in their arsenal, controlling thought, manipulating reality, and silencing those who dare to speak out.

As these elites sense their plans unraveling, they retreat into private banking and cryptic financial channels, but their ultimate aim remains clear: the collapse of global economies to establish a new world order under their absolute control. They think their plan is foolproof, but they didn't anticipate the rise of counterforces.

Trump and General Flynn have been laying the groundwork for a massive counterstrike, executing covert operations to dismantle the Deep State from within. The Quantum Financial System (QFS), a revolutionary technology, is their secret weapon, designed to overthrow the corrupt financial structures of the elites and bring about a new era of transparency and freedom.

As the world teeters on the brink of a Black Swan event, engineered economic meltdowns and social chaos are distractions from their true aim: the Great Reset. This terrifying new world order would mark the end of monetary privacy and the final tightening of their iron grip on the global populace.

But patriots worldwide, take heed! The storm is here. This battle for the soul of humanity is not some far-off conflict—it’s happening now. Trump’s coalition is fighting on the frontlines, preparing to activate the QFS and dismantle the elite’s centuries-old network.

Stay alert, stay vigilant. The Great Awakening has arrived. This is our moment—resist, or be swept away in their final bid for tyranny. The truth is your weapon, and awareness your shield. The endgame is here.

This is why I have been saying there won't be an election. It's going to get ugly! 🤔

[radlymona]

People are like “we need the liberal version of Joe Rogan and Ben Shapiro” and it’s like but what do they have to offer? Podcasts about social inequality, racism and climate change? About the housing crisis?

People listening to these podcasts don’t want to coherent political and economic analysis they want content slop about how Haitian immigrants are eating cats and dogs, and showing women and gay people having meltdowns in debates and cancel culture and the Carnivore diet and isolation tanks and the vaccines will kill you and how Halle Bailey as Ariel is a sign that the woke mob will take your rights away and mass shooting victims are actually crisis actors.

There is no political coherence to this demographic, they’re just dumb. Even living paycheck to paycheck won’t make them realise the position they’ve subjugated themselves in. They’ll spend the rest of their lives blaming the invisible liberal elite while the Republicans they vote in grow richer and richer from the tax breaks they cut themselves all the while allowing landlords to up rent prices that eventually makes them go homeless. At which point they’ll STILL blame women and minorities because of DEI policies

[quixoticanarchy]

Ok I read a book on degrowth by jason hickel (Less is More) and I still need to read more but. preliminary thoughts:

I appreciate the quantification of by how much current resource and energy consumption overshoots sustainable limits, and the excoriation of the absurd demand for compound growth on a finite planet; and the book has a decent history of capitalism and the violence and dispossession it rests upon. There is some similar quantification for how proposed degrowth measures would affect resource consumption, though (understandably) piecemeal, so it’s unclear what the full impact of these measures would be vis-à-vis climate meltdown and ecological tipping points, or on what timeline the degrowth transition would have to occur.

Degrowth measures - resource use caps, a shorter work week, basic income, healthcare, income caps, re-localizing supply chains, killing planned obsolescence, moving to a shared rather than personal ownership model for things like vehicles, etc. - are broadly “good” and have been promoted and supported outside of a specifically degrowth context already, which speaks to their appeal but also their pitfalls. Implementing all these measures and more has to carry the explicit intention of improving human and ecological welfare, GDP be damned, and has to be tied explicitly to a commitment to reducing growth and capping profits; otherwise, the trap I see is attempting to enact some of these measures while keeping the capitalist edifice intact - which, as Hickel acknowledges, would spur a new ‘fix’ in which some other domain or market is forced open for exploitation so that growth can continue.

This is obviously at odds with degrowth and it isn’t anything degrowth advocates don’t know, but it seems naïve to envision states whose existence and operation are so inextricable from capitalism being capable of doing such reforms to the degree and with the ideological shift necessary. It would be suicide. Which I’d welcome, but just saying we need to tackle corruption and have more real democracy so that governments can serve people’s actual needs does not convince me that these policies could be sincerely and radically adopted by any state that exists today.

The book seems to walk a line between “degrowth is very radical since it would require ditching the demand for economic growth and probably most of the profit motive itself, which is a huge mindset and ideological shift - if not to socialism per se then to post-capitalism” and also “degrowth isn’t that radical/outlandish since what it takes is all these commonsense reforms that people already want anyway”. Sometimes the degrowth policy package sounds a lot like just welfare-state capitalism, except with resource and energy consumption dramatically scaled back, and without the economic growth imperative. So… no longer capitalism as such, but still using many of the master’s tools to retrofit the master’s house.

In principle, a world exists in which wealthy countries consume far less and the rest of the world is freer and not (or at least less) exploited. In principle, degrowth measures could help us realize that world. Saying it’s not a revolutionary process might keep some readers from being scared off, etc, but I’m left wondering then: where does the force come from to make these changes happen? Are wealthy countries and individuals and corporations going to just agree to resource caps and wealth caps and redistribution? The argument that degrowth is a kind of decolonization and requires the demise of the colonial and capitalist view of people and nature is compelling to me, but that seems to conflict with the idea that degrowth can be implemented as a set of reforms to the systems that exist now, without the messiness of revolution and without somehow being co-opted by capitalism or packaged as ‘green growth’ (which Hickel makes clear would be bad and is bullshit). The ideological shift and end to growth is the big ask here - without that, the reforms are just rearranging deck chairs on the titanic, or maybe on the lawn of the master’s house, if you will.