TO COMMENT CLICK HERE
welcome to reality trivia
reality is the state of things as they actually exist
sep 14, 2024
Real News Today
Poor People Are Business Owners, Too – But Myths Around Poverty and Entrepreneurship Hold Them Back(Reality)
Higher prices, lower turnover, more workers: The reality of California's $20 fast-food minimum wage(Reality)
During antitrust trial, exec admits Kroger jacked up milk and egg prices above inflation(Capitalism)
Us Has Its First National Strategy To Reduce Plastic Pollution − Here Are 3 Strong Points and a Key Issue To Watch(Environment)
Debunking the myth that 'inflation is caused by wage increases and too much government spending'
REALITY
(for previous day's articles see "what's inside" below)
the american democracy ticket
vs
the neo-confederate party's nominee for president |
the neo-confederate party's nominee for vice president |
ONE THING TO REMEMBER DURING 2024!!!
|
the other thing to remember during 2024!!!
|
comment/tweet of the day
Charging Triceratops - du
The Biggest Gaslighting Act in American History
He "won" the debate like he "won" the 2020 election like he's a "billionaire" like he's a "victim." It all comes together when he starts citing made-up polls that he won the debate 89-2 or 75-12 or 81-6, never saying the same scores twice. It's all make-believe. Trump is the biggest gaslighting act in American history.
Connect the dots. His support is all based on fabrications. His life is a mirage.
---
thom hartmann
Trump's New Hero: The Strongman Who Crushed Democracy in Hungary Orbán’s Hungary is the GOP’s dream for America’s future…
9/11’s Darkest Irony: Trump’s "Peace Candidate"
Debate Scam Unraveled Trump and the entire GOP are now furiously trying to rewrite their history of their using unnecessary wars to get re-elected - will it work?
Will Donald Trump Reveal Himself Tonight as the Antichrist?
For me, all the proof I need that Trump, if not the biblical Antichrist, is at least a political one, is what he says and does...
american exceptionalism - defined
1. illegitimate & corrupt scotus
2. significant voting population of stupid people who lack a basic understanding of how government operates or even know the 3 branches of government
3. a traitor and criminal running for president. Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean
4. 2 neo-confederate candidates who smell funny.
5. allow corporations to price-gouge american consumers while providing mediocre products.
Schools evacuated in Springfield, Ohio, following Trump-Vance lies about immigrants eating pets
Trump and his running mate have doubled down on false claims that Haitian immigrants are killing cats and dogs
By Nandika Chatterjee - salon
Published September 13, 2024 12:34PM (EDT)
The Springfield City School District evacuated two elementary schools and a middle school Friday morning “based on information received from the Springfield Police Division,” according to school officials, The Columbus Dispatch reported.
The school shutdowns come a day after Springfield’s City Hall had to be evacuated because of a bomb threat and three days after Donald Trump’s false claim that Haitian immigrants are eating the city’s dogs and cats. City officials, as well as Ohio's Republican governor, Mike DeWine, have debunked the viral claim, but Trump's running mate, Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, only doubled down on attacking the immigrant community there.
It is not yet clear if Friday’s evacuations are from a new threat or related to Thursday’s bomb threats, ABC News reported.
Students from Perrin Woods Elementary School and Snowhill Elementary School were evacuated from their buildings and moved to an “alternate district location” according to an SCSD news release as the district currently dismisses students to their parents.
Roosevelt Middle School did not open Friday based on the information provided by Springfield police. Some parents arriving to drop their children off at school were turned away, the Springfield News-Sun reported.
Bomb-detecting dogs helped police clear out multiple facilities listed in the threatening email on Thursday, including the two elementary schools, City Hall, and a few driver’s license bureaus, Springfield Police Chief Allison Elliott told ABC News. Elliot added that the county court facilities have also been cleared “out of an abundance of caution” until FBI and local police uncover the source of the threat.
The school shutdowns come a day after Springfield’s City Hall had to be evacuated because of a bomb threat and three days after Donald Trump’s false claim that Haitian immigrants are eating the city’s dogs and cats. City officials, as well as Ohio's Republican governor, Mike DeWine, have debunked the viral claim, but Trump's running mate, Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, only doubled down on attacking the immigrant community there.
It is not yet clear if Friday’s evacuations are from a new threat or related to Thursday’s bomb threats, ABC News reported.
Students from Perrin Woods Elementary School and Snowhill Elementary School were evacuated from their buildings and moved to an “alternate district location” according to an SCSD news release as the district currently dismisses students to their parents.
Roosevelt Middle School did not open Friday based on the information provided by Springfield police. Some parents arriving to drop their children off at school were turned away, the Springfield News-Sun reported.
Bomb-detecting dogs helped police clear out multiple facilities listed in the threatening email on Thursday, including the two elementary schools, City Hall, and a few driver’s license bureaus, Springfield Police Chief Allison Elliott told ABC News. Elliot added that the county court facilities have also been cleared “out of an abundance of caution” until FBI and local police uncover the source of the threat.
are 70+ millions americans really stupid enough to vote for this garbage again???
Trump's ex-FBI official: We have 'many reasons' to think ex-president is a Russian 'asset'
Travis Gettys - raw story
September 12, 2024 6:56AM ET
Donald Trump could rightly be seen as a Russian asset, according to a former FBI director the ex-president fired in his first term.
Andrew McCabe appeared on the One Decision podcast co-hosted by former British intelligence agency chief Sir Richard Dearlove, who asked whether he thought it possible that Trump was a Russian asset, and he said, "I do, I do," reported The Guardian.
“I don’t know that I would characterize it as [an] active, recruited, knowing asset in the way that people in the intelligence community think of that term," McCabe said. "But I do think that Donald Trump has given us many reasons to question his approach to the Russia problem in the United States, and I think his approach to interacting with Vladimir Putin, be it phone calls, face-to-face meetings, the things that he has said in public about Putin, all raise significant questions.”
McCabe raised suspicions about Trump's attitude toward Ukraine and NATO in the face of Russian aggression and said he's had concerns about his admiration for Vladimir Putin since the ex-president fired him in March 2018, two days before he was due to retire, during the FBI's investigation of Kremlin interference in the 2016 election.
“You have to have some very serious questions about, why is it that Donald Trump … has this fawning sort of admiration for Vladimir Putin in a way that no other American president, Republican or Democrat, ever has," McCabe said.
“It may just be from a fundamental misunderstanding of this problem set that’s always a problem," he added. "That’s always a possibility, and I guess the other end of that spectrum would be that there is some kind of relationship or a desire for a relationship of some sort, be it economic or business oriented, what have you. I think those are possibilities. None of them have been proven. But as an intelligence officer, those are the things that you think about.”
McCabe expressed “very serious concerns” about a second Trump presidency and said that Russia had long desired to interfere with U.S. democracy.
“Their desire to kind of wreak havoc or mischief in our political system is something that’s been going on for years, decades and decades and decades," McCabe said. “Their interest in just simply sowing chaos and division and polarization. If they can do that, it’s a win. If they can actually hurt a candidate they don’t like, or help one that they do like, that’s an even bigger win.”
The Justice Department investigated McCabe for allegedly lying about a media leak, but that case was dropped in 2020, and he settled a lawsuit the following year that restored his full pension.
Andrew McCabe appeared on the One Decision podcast co-hosted by former British intelligence agency chief Sir Richard Dearlove, who asked whether he thought it possible that Trump was a Russian asset, and he said, "I do, I do," reported The Guardian.
“I don’t know that I would characterize it as [an] active, recruited, knowing asset in the way that people in the intelligence community think of that term," McCabe said. "But I do think that Donald Trump has given us many reasons to question his approach to the Russia problem in the United States, and I think his approach to interacting with Vladimir Putin, be it phone calls, face-to-face meetings, the things that he has said in public about Putin, all raise significant questions.”
McCabe raised suspicions about Trump's attitude toward Ukraine and NATO in the face of Russian aggression and said he's had concerns about his admiration for Vladimir Putin since the ex-president fired him in March 2018, two days before he was due to retire, during the FBI's investigation of Kremlin interference in the 2016 election.
“You have to have some very serious questions about, why is it that Donald Trump … has this fawning sort of admiration for Vladimir Putin in a way that no other American president, Republican or Democrat, ever has," McCabe said.
“It may just be from a fundamental misunderstanding of this problem set that’s always a problem," he added. "That’s always a possibility, and I guess the other end of that spectrum would be that there is some kind of relationship or a desire for a relationship of some sort, be it economic or business oriented, what have you. I think those are possibilities. None of them have been proven. But as an intelligence officer, those are the things that you think about.”
McCabe expressed “very serious concerns” about a second Trump presidency and said that Russia had long desired to interfere with U.S. democracy.
“Their desire to kind of wreak havoc or mischief in our political system is something that’s been going on for years, decades and decades and decades," McCabe said. “Their interest in just simply sowing chaos and division and polarization. If they can do that, it’s a win. If they can actually hurt a candidate they don’t like, or help one that they do like, that’s an even bigger win.”
The Justice Department investigated McCabe for allegedly lying about a media leak, but that case was dropped in 2020, and he settled a lawsuit the following year that restored his full pension.
"They're admitting it": Experts say megamerger helps corporations that used pandemic to raise costs
Kroger and Albertsons merger would benefit brands that exploited the pandemic and high inflation to raise prices
By Cara Michelle Smith - salon
Published September 12, 2024 8:00AM (EDT)
Major food conglomerates that hiked prices amid the pandemic could benefit a $24.6 billion grocery megamerger facing a federal court challenge from the Federal Trade Commission over concerns that the newly created company would raise Americans’ food prices.
The country's food supplier system is dominated by corporate conglomerates that stand to flourish under the megamerger between The Kroger Co. and Albertsons, experts say.
“Throughout the food supply chain, we've got these market power bottlenecks,” Randy Stutz, president of the American Antitrust Institute, told Salon. “We need to prevent any and all of them from getting any worse than they already are.”
"Market power bottlenecks" in grocery and food products
Under the deal, The Kroger Co. would acquire Albertsons, combining America’s two largest grocery chains in the biggest supermarket merger in U.S. history. The combined company would control 22% of the U.S. food retail market; Kroger and Albertsons collectively own and operate nearly 5,000 supermarkets and 4,000 pharmacies across nearly 40 brands in 48 states. There’s a decent chance you shop at one of Kroger’s or Albertsons’ supermarkets: Kroger Co. owns brands like Dillons, Ralphs, Mariano’s and King Soopers; Albertsons’ regional brands include Safeway, Jewel-Osco and Randalls.
Kroger says the sale will unlock efficiencies that would lead to “lower prices and more choices for more customers.” The FTC argues the deal would “eliminate fierce competition,” likely translating into higher prices and a smaller variety of brands, among other impacts. Four out of five consumer product mergers in the U.S. (which includes food retailers) lead to higher prices for customers, according to a 2008 study from the FTC and Princeton University.
Antitrust experts and food economists told Salon the merger could create a dominant grocery giant with power to raise food prices, largely without losing customers. A combined Kroger-Albertsons could also create conditions in which the biggest food brands prosper – corporate giants that, according to one federal report, exploited the pandemic and high inflation to raise prices.
"There isn’t actually much choice" in the grocery aisles
America’s food industry is incredibly consolidated, often dominated by a handful of conglomerates that produce the majority of a given food product.
In 2022, the four biggest food brands in pork, coffee, bread, beer and cookies controlled 60% of those markets. Laid out more plainly: in the snack bar category, four companies – General Mills, Kellogg, Simply Good Foods and Mars – made 66.4% of the snack bars stocked on shelves, per 2021 data.
The biggest food brands have power in a range of products. PepsiCo, for example, controls 88% of the chip dip market. The J.M. Smucker Co., known best for jarred fruit spreads, owns 25% of the coffee market – and 47% of the premium pet food space. Unilever, which owns beauty brands like Dove, Pond’s and Axe, makes half the mayonnaise on grocery shelves. Kraft Heinz owns another 30% of the mayonnaise market, as well as nearly 20% of bacon, 10% of coffee and juice, and more than 70% of dry mac & cheese mixes.
“For the average shopper, the grocery store seems more abundant and full of variety than any other time in human history,” Claire Kelloway, program manager at the Open Markets Institute, told Salon. “But all these different brands mask the fact that there isn't actually that much choice.”
In recent years, and during the pandemic, costs associated with many of those companies’ products have soared. The cost of eggs is up 54% from November 2020 to March 2024. Milk prices are up 36%, and cereal prices are up 28% since then. In 2022, food prices rose 9.9% – the steepest annual price hike since 1979. Grocery prices rose more than overall food prices in 2022, swelling 11.4%. As of July 2024, food prices have risen 25% since the pandemic.
But during periods of high prices, profits soared. Food retailers’ profits increased to 6% over their total costs in 2021; in the first three quarters of 2023, that rose to 7% – “casting doubt on the assertions of some companies that rising prices at the grocery store are the result of retailers’ own rising costs,” the FTC said in a recent report on the grocery sector’s pandemic pricing practices.
In an analysis from The Guardian of 100 top public companies’ quarterly earnings statements from early 2022 vs. early 2020, profits were up by a median of 49%. Albertsons’ quarterly profits were up 671%; Keurig DrPepper’s quarterly profits were up 83%, and Hershey’s were up 62%.
“There's some basic red flags in terms of economic indicators that strongly suggest there's serious market power problems,” Stutz told Salon.
Food brands using the pandemic or inflation ‘as cover’ to raise prices
Executives at some of the biggest food conglomerates have admitted to raising prices more than necessary during the pandemic and periods of high inflation. In 2021, executives from Tyson, which owns brands like Sara Lee and Hillshire Farm, told investors that “pricing actions” in beef led to sales earnings that “more than offset the higher (cost of goods).” In 2022, executives from Procter & Gamble – which owns Tide, Bounty, Gillette and many other brands – told investors that, looking at future sales growth, “we continue to believe that the majority of that growth will be price driven with a negative volume component, as you would expect given the inflationary pressure.”
Last month, a Kroger executive testified in the FTC’s case against the Albertsons merger about an email that seemed to imply Kroger did, in fact, raise prices more than needed earlier this year. “Retail inflation has been significantly higher than cost inflation,” Kroger’s senior director for pricing wrote in an email to his bosses in March, per Bloomberg.
“If they're admitting it, and the federal government is finding evidence of it, then we absolutely know that to be true,” Amanda Starbuck, research director at Food & Water Watch, told Salon of grocery and food conglomerates exploiting outside events. “There's plenty of evidence out there that (suggests) it is pretty easy for them to point to a terrible, tragic disaster, and use it as coverage to profit and to raise prices.”
A spokesperson for Kroger said in a statement that "this cherry-picked email covers a specific period and does not reflect Kroger’s decades-long business model to lower prices for customers by reducing its margins."
"What’s missing is the fact that Kroger’s retail prices include the cost to run a grocery store, including labor, transportation, advertising and other costs. Many of these costs have significantly increased since 2020. Kroger’s pricing decisions are impacted by factors beyond inflation," the statement continued. "We work relentlessly to keep prices as low as possible for customers in our highly competitive industry. This is especially true for essential products like milk and eggs. Since 2020, these commodities saw significant cost fluctuations for a broad range of products. Despite these challenges Kroger has maintained competitive pricing for milk and eggs, especially compared to Walmart. Reducing margins to lower prices over time so more customers shop with us is our business strategy, and the strategy we will implement at Albertsons after our merger.”
Under a more powerful Kroger-Albertsons, an already deeply consolidated pool of food brands could stand to prosper from even further consolidation. More consolidation – and more influential corporate giants – risks more deeply entangling the interests of profit-driven companies in America’s food system.
“Allowing a merger like that to go through really threatens to lock in and entrench a very concentrated market structure,” Stutz told Salon. “Among the levers to pull, in terms of promoting competition, that's one less lever that can be pulled, right?”
The country's food supplier system is dominated by corporate conglomerates that stand to flourish under the megamerger between The Kroger Co. and Albertsons, experts say.
“Throughout the food supply chain, we've got these market power bottlenecks,” Randy Stutz, president of the American Antitrust Institute, told Salon. “We need to prevent any and all of them from getting any worse than they already are.”
"Market power bottlenecks" in grocery and food products
Under the deal, The Kroger Co. would acquire Albertsons, combining America’s two largest grocery chains in the biggest supermarket merger in U.S. history. The combined company would control 22% of the U.S. food retail market; Kroger and Albertsons collectively own and operate nearly 5,000 supermarkets and 4,000 pharmacies across nearly 40 brands in 48 states. There’s a decent chance you shop at one of Kroger’s or Albertsons’ supermarkets: Kroger Co. owns brands like Dillons, Ralphs, Mariano’s and King Soopers; Albertsons’ regional brands include Safeway, Jewel-Osco and Randalls.
Kroger says the sale will unlock efficiencies that would lead to “lower prices and more choices for more customers.” The FTC argues the deal would “eliminate fierce competition,” likely translating into higher prices and a smaller variety of brands, among other impacts. Four out of five consumer product mergers in the U.S. (which includes food retailers) lead to higher prices for customers, according to a 2008 study from the FTC and Princeton University.
Antitrust experts and food economists told Salon the merger could create a dominant grocery giant with power to raise food prices, largely without losing customers. A combined Kroger-Albertsons could also create conditions in which the biggest food brands prosper – corporate giants that, according to one federal report, exploited the pandemic and high inflation to raise prices.
"There isn’t actually much choice" in the grocery aisles
America’s food industry is incredibly consolidated, often dominated by a handful of conglomerates that produce the majority of a given food product.
In 2022, the four biggest food brands in pork, coffee, bread, beer and cookies controlled 60% of those markets. Laid out more plainly: in the snack bar category, four companies – General Mills, Kellogg, Simply Good Foods and Mars – made 66.4% of the snack bars stocked on shelves, per 2021 data.
The biggest food brands have power in a range of products. PepsiCo, for example, controls 88% of the chip dip market. The J.M. Smucker Co., known best for jarred fruit spreads, owns 25% of the coffee market – and 47% of the premium pet food space. Unilever, which owns beauty brands like Dove, Pond’s and Axe, makes half the mayonnaise on grocery shelves. Kraft Heinz owns another 30% of the mayonnaise market, as well as nearly 20% of bacon, 10% of coffee and juice, and more than 70% of dry mac & cheese mixes.
“For the average shopper, the grocery store seems more abundant and full of variety than any other time in human history,” Claire Kelloway, program manager at the Open Markets Institute, told Salon. “But all these different brands mask the fact that there isn't actually that much choice.”
In recent years, and during the pandemic, costs associated with many of those companies’ products have soared. The cost of eggs is up 54% from November 2020 to March 2024. Milk prices are up 36%, and cereal prices are up 28% since then. In 2022, food prices rose 9.9% – the steepest annual price hike since 1979. Grocery prices rose more than overall food prices in 2022, swelling 11.4%. As of July 2024, food prices have risen 25% since the pandemic.
But during periods of high prices, profits soared. Food retailers’ profits increased to 6% over their total costs in 2021; in the first three quarters of 2023, that rose to 7% – “casting doubt on the assertions of some companies that rising prices at the grocery store are the result of retailers’ own rising costs,” the FTC said in a recent report on the grocery sector’s pandemic pricing practices.
In an analysis from The Guardian of 100 top public companies’ quarterly earnings statements from early 2022 vs. early 2020, profits were up by a median of 49%. Albertsons’ quarterly profits were up 671%; Keurig DrPepper’s quarterly profits were up 83%, and Hershey’s were up 62%.
“There's some basic red flags in terms of economic indicators that strongly suggest there's serious market power problems,” Stutz told Salon.
Food brands using the pandemic or inflation ‘as cover’ to raise prices
Executives at some of the biggest food conglomerates have admitted to raising prices more than necessary during the pandemic and periods of high inflation. In 2021, executives from Tyson, which owns brands like Sara Lee and Hillshire Farm, told investors that “pricing actions” in beef led to sales earnings that “more than offset the higher (cost of goods).” In 2022, executives from Procter & Gamble – which owns Tide, Bounty, Gillette and many other brands – told investors that, looking at future sales growth, “we continue to believe that the majority of that growth will be price driven with a negative volume component, as you would expect given the inflationary pressure.”
Last month, a Kroger executive testified in the FTC’s case against the Albertsons merger about an email that seemed to imply Kroger did, in fact, raise prices more than needed earlier this year. “Retail inflation has been significantly higher than cost inflation,” Kroger’s senior director for pricing wrote in an email to his bosses in March, per Bloomberg.
“If they're admitting it, and the federal government is finding evidence of it, then we absolutely know that to be true,” Amanda Starbuck, research director at Food & Water Watch, told Salon of grocery and food conglomerates exploiting outside events. “There's plenty of evidence out there that (suggests) it is pretty easy for them to point to a terrible, tragic disaster, and use it as coverage to profit and to raise prices.”
A spokesperson for Kroger said in a statement that "this cherry-picked email covers a specific period and does not reflect Kroger’s decades-long business model to lower prices for customers by reducing its margins."
"What’s missing is the fact that Kroger’s retail prices include the cost to run a grocery store, including labor, transportation, advertising and other costs. Many of these costs have significantly increased since 2020. Kroger’s pricing decisions are impacted by factors beyond inflation," the statement continued. "We work relentlessly to keep prices as low as possible for customers in our highly competitive industry. This is especially true for essential products like milk and eggs. Since 2020, these commodities saw significant cost fluctuations for a broad range of products. Despite these challenges Kroger has maintained competitive pricing for milk and eggs, especially compared to Walmart. Reducing margins to lower prices over time so more customers shop with us is our business strategy, and the strategy we will implement at Albertsons after our merger.”
Under a more powerful Kroger-Albertsons, an already deeply consolidated pool of food brands could stand to prosper from even further consolidation. More consolidation – and more influential corporate giants – risks more deeply entangling the interests of profit-driven companies in America’s food system.
“Allowing a merger like that to go through really threatens to lock in and entrench a very concentrated market structure,” Stutz told Salon. “Among the levers to pull, in terms of promoting competition, that's one less lever that can be pulled, right?”
talking to the stupid is a waste of time!!!
american values redefined: greed, racism, hypocrisy
racism: The unfair treatment of people who belong to a different race. Violent behavior towards them. Having the belief that some races of people are better than others. General beliefs about other people based only on their race. Showing this through violent or unfair treatment of people of other races.
greed: intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food
hypocrisy: the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.
Apple Loses Its Sweet Irish Tax Deal
Dirt Diggers Digest
chronicling corporate misbehavior (and how to research it)
9/12/2024
When governments in the United States decide to give special tax breaks to large corporations, the sky is the limit and no one can challenge that largesse. As Apple just learned to the tune of about $14 billion, things are different in the European Union.
The EU is much stricter about the tax benefits and other forms of financial assistance that can be given to companies. What is called state aid is not banned entirely, but it is supposed to be used only when it is “exceptionally justified” and does not distort competition.
Moreover, the European Commission can bring legal action when it believes that a member state has awarded state aid improperly, with the remedy being that the company has to give back the money.
Some state and local governments in the U.S. use procedures know as clawbacks to recover economic development assistance from companies that fail to meet job-creation or other promises they made to receive aid. The European Commission cases, by contrast, are not related to company performance but are instead based on an argument that the aid was illegitimate to begin with.
EU member states are supposed to get prior approval for state aid awards. Yet they often adopt practices, especially with regard to taxes, that the Commission may later decide constitute improper aid. That is what happened with Apple, which had received special rulings in Ireland dating back to the early 1990s that allowed it to avoid paying billions of euros in taxes in that country. Those rulings allowed two Irish subsidiaries of Apple that held valuable intellectual property licenses to exclude profits linked to those licenses from their taxable income in Ireland.
In 2016 the Commission challenged that arrangement and ordered Ireland to recover the aid. At the behest of both Apple and the Irish government, a lower court rescinded that order in 2020. The EU’s highest legal authority, the Court of Justice, just ruled the other way and put Apple on the hook for about 13 billion euros.
Legal disputes over state aid are common in the EU. Since 1999 the Commission has brought more than 300 challenges and forced companies to repay billions of euros. Yet it is also common for deep-pocketed corporations to appeal those decisions—and often they succeed. Amazon, for example, successfully appealed a ruling by the Commission against its tax deal with Luxembourg.
From what I can tell, the largest case prior to Apple in which a Commission challenge survived appeals was one in which the electric utility EDF had to pay back over 1 billion euros to the French government. When the Commission announced its action in 2015, the EU’s top competition regulator, Margrethe Vestager, was quoted as saying: “Whether private or public, large or small, any undertaking operating in the Single Market must pay its fair share of corporation tax. The Commission’s investigation confirmed that EDF received an individual, unjustified tax exemption which gave it an advantage to the detriment of its competitors, in breach of EU State aid rules.”
The Apple ruling reinforces the idea that special tax breaks are harmful both to competition and to fair taxation. We are a long way from that realization in the U.S., where tax deals and other incentives are widely treated as corporate entitlements.
The EU is much stricter about the tax benefits and other forms of financial assistance that can be given to companies. What is called state aid is not banned entirely, but it is supposed to be used only when it is “exceptionally justified” and does not distort competition.
Moreover, the European Commission can bring legal action when it believes that a member state has awarded state aid improperly, with the remedy being that the company has to give back the money.
Some state and local governments in the U.S. use procedures know as clawbacks to recover economic development assistance from companies that fail to meet job-creation or other promises they made to receive aid. The European Commission cases, by contrast, are not related to company performance but are instead based on an argument that the aid was illegitimate to begin with.
EU member states are supposed to get prior approval for state aid awards. Yet they often adopt practices, especially with regard to taxes, that the Commission may later decide constitute improper aid. That is what happened with Apple, which had received special rulings in Ireland dating back to the early 1990s that allowed it to avoid paying billions of euros in taxes in that country. Those rulings allowed two Irish subsidiaries of Apple that held valuable intellectual property licenses to exclude profits linked to those licenses from their taxable income in Ireland.
In 2016 the Commission challenged that arrangement and ordered Ireland to recover the aid. At the behest of both Apple and the Irish government, a lower court rescinded that order in 2020. The EU’s highest legal authority, the Court of Justice, just ruled the other way and put Apple on the hook for about 13 billion euros.
Legal disputes over state aid are common in the EU. Since 1999 the Commission has brought more than 300 challenges and forced companies to repay billions of euros. Yet it is also common for deep-pocketed corporations to appeal those decisions—and often they succeed. Amazon, for example, successfully appealed a ruling by the Commission against its tax deal with Luxembourg.
From what I can tell, the largest case prior to Apple in which a Commission challenge survived appeals was one in which the electric utility EDF had to pay back over 1 billion euros to the French government. When the Commission announced its action in 2015, the EU’s top competition regulator, Margrethe Vestager, was quoted as saying: “Whether private or public, large or small, any undertaking operating in the Single Market must pay its fair share of corporation tax. The Commission’s investigation confirmed that EDF received an individual, unjustified tax exemption which gave it an advantage to the detriment of its competitors, in breach of EU State aid rules.”
The Apple ruling reinforces the idea that special tax breaks are harmful both to competition and to fair taxation. We are a long way from that realization in the U.S., where tax deals and other incentives are widely treated as corporate entitlements.
nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people
The horrendous truth about Trumponomics
Robert Reich - alternet
September 12, 2024
At Tuesday night’s presidential debate, Trump was asked about his economic agenda. As we’ve come to expect, he produced an incoherent word salad — a rambling, nonsensical, maniacal aggregate of lies and diversions that offered more evidence of his declining acuity than of anything resembling sane economics.
He was only slightly more coherent at his appearance last Thursday at the Economic Club of New York.
On both occasions, Trump promised to raise tariffs on virtually all imports. He has said he’ll use the revenue to finance child care, combat inflation, pay for a U.S. sovereign wealth fund, and help reserve the dollar’s dominant role in the global economy.
It’s another enormous lie. Tariffs are in effect taxes on everyone who buys imported goods — that is, on most Americans. And they’re highly regressive, since poor and working-class Americans would pay a higher portion of their incomes than anyone else. They’d spur inflation by pushing prices upward.
Even if Trump were able to impose all of the tariffs he has floated, the amount of revenue they would bring in would fall far way short of the “trillions” he has described, since higher prices on imported goods would cause consumers to search for alternatives.
Trump has also promised to extend or even enlarge his tax cuts, which are supposed to end in 2025. They have disproportionately benefited America’s wealthy and big corporations. They are estimated to add at least $4 trillion to the national debt.
Finally, at the Economic Club of New York, he promised, if elected, to “eliminate a minimum of 10 existing government regulations for every new regulation added” under his administration.
Trump announced that billionaire Elon Musk will head a “government efficiency commission” to conduct a sweeping audit of the federal government and recommend “drastic reforms” for cutting waste. (Musk says he “can’t wait.”)
I’ve already shared with you why you need to be wary of Elon Musk, if you weren’t already. Putting Elon Musk in charge of “drastic reforms” to achieve more “efficiency” is like putting Willie Sutton in charge of making banks safer from robbers.
Most regulations are guardrails against corporations harming the public in pursuit of profits.
Instead of the word “regulation,” substitute the word “protection.” These guardrails protect us from unsafe products, dangerous workplaces, harmful foods, unsafe drugs, fraud, monopolization, unfair labor practices, and environmental hazards.
When Trump (and Musk) equate regulations with waste or inefficiency, what they’re really saying is that big corporations ought to be able to wreak as much harm on the public as they want, if doing so enlarges their profits.
Obviously, Trump’s corporate backers couldn’t be happier.
The Supreme Court, now dominated by Republican appointees, has already been doing the bidding of big corporations seeking to quash regulations. Its June 28 ruling Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which should have received far more attention that it did, ended the 40-year-old precedent of what’s called “Chevron deference.”
What this means is that from now on, rather than deferring to the expertise of expert agencies on how to interpret ambiguous language in laws, federal judges have the power to decide what a law means for themselves. Despite not being accountable to the people, judges will be able to expand their role into the realm of policymaking.
You can bet that big corporations will “forum shop” for judges that will minimize any and all public protections that prevent big corporations from maximizing their profits.
“In one fell swoop, the majority today gives itself exclusive power over every open issue — no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden — involving the meaning of regulatory law,” wrote Justice Elena Kagan in her dissent from the ruling. “As if it did not have enough on its plate, the majority turns itself into the country’s administrative czar.”
Trump Republicans and their corporate backers use terms like the “deep state” or “administrative state” or “unelected bureaucrats” so Americans will come to view regulations as anti-democratic and anti-capitalist.
The truth is just the opposite. Big corporations and their executives are accountable only to their shareholders, not to the public. What’s really anti-democratic is allowing them freer rein to make more profit by harming the public.
Nor are regulations anti-capitalist. In fact, regulations save capitalism from its own excesses. Many of today’s regulatory agencies — the FDA, SEC, NLRB, and so on — are legacies of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration, when the Great Depression exposed the weaknesses of unfettered capitalism. Because of those regulations, America did not succumb to fascism or communism during the 1930s, as did other nations.
Trump has always wanted us to believe that “expertise” is bad — that facts, analysis, and science cannot be trusted.
You’ll remember that as president he launched direct attacks on scientists, engineers, medical specialists, lawyers, and other professionals in government who do the hard work of applying laws to specific instances through regulations. Whether the subject was climate change, environmental protection, worker safety, or the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump and his enablers rejected expertise.
Partly as a result, the proportion of Americans with a low level of trust in scientific expertise rose from 3 percent in 2016 to 13 percent in 2020.
Now, Trump promises to finish the job by getting rid of these public servants altogether and substituting people who are loyal to him.
To Trump and his lapdogs, agency expertise has become the reviled “deep state” — or as described in Project 2025’s transition playbook, “a sprawling federal bureaucracy that all too often is carrying out its own policy plans and preferences — or, worse yet, the policy plans and preferences of a radical, supposedly ‘woke’ faction of the country.”
In extending his tax cuts for the wealthy and big corporations, putting Musk in charge of making government more “efficient,” and warring against regulations, Trump and his Supreme Court seek to make big American corporations even more powerful and profitable. The assumption is this will make everyone better off.
It’s all another variant on the failed doctrine of “trickle-down” economics, which has proven itself a cruel hoax.
For 40 years, big corporations and the ultra-wealthy have made off like bandits while almost nothing has trickled down to the rest of us.
He was only slightly more coherent at his appearance last Thursday at the Economic Club of New York.
On both occasions, Trump promised to raise tariffs on virtually all imports. He has said he’ll use the revenue to finance child care, combat inflation, pay for a U.S. sovereign wealth fund, and help reserve the dollar’s dominant role in the global economy.
It’s another enormous lie. Tariffs are in effect taxes on everyone who buys imported goods — that is, on most Americans. And they’re highly regressive, since poor and working-class Americans would pay a higher portion of their incomes than anyone else. They’d spur inflation by pushing prices upward.
Even if Trump were able to impose all of the tariffs he has floated, the amount of revenue they would bring in would fall far way short of the “trillions” he has described, since higher prices on imported goods would cause consumers to search for alternatives.
Trump has also promised to extend or even enlarge his tax cuts, which are supposed to end in 2025. They have disproportionately benefited America’s wealthy and big corporations. They are estimated to add at least $4 trillion to the national debt.
Finally, at the Economic Club of New York, he promised, if elected, to “eliminate a minimum of 10 existing government regulations for every new regulation added” under his administration.
Trump announced that billionaire Elon Musk will head a “government efficiency commission” to conduct a sweeping audit of the federal government and recommend “drastic reforms” for cutting waste. (Musk says he “can’t wait.”)
I’ve already shared with you why you need to be wary of Elon Musk, if you weren’t already. Putting Elon Musk in charge of “drastic reforms” to achieve more “efficiency” is like putting Willie Sutton in charge of making banks safer from robbers.
Most regulations are guardrails against corporations harming the public in pursuit of profits.
Instead of the word “regulation,” substitute the word “protection.” These guardrails protect us from unsafe products, dangerous workplaces, harmful foods, unsafe drugs, fraud, monopolization, unfair labor practices, and environmental hazards.
When Trump (and Musk) equate regulations with waste or inefficiency, what they’re really saying is that big corporations ought to be able to wreak as much harm on the public as they want, if doing so enlarges their profits.
Obviously, Trump’s corporate backers couldn’t be happier.
The Supreme Court, now dominated by Republican appointees, has already been doing the bidding of big corporations seeking to quash regulations. Its June 28 ruling Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which should have received far more attention that it did, ended the 40-year-old precedent of what’s called “Chevron deference.”
What this means is that from now on, rather than deferring to the expertise of expert agencies on how to interpret ambiguous language in laws, federal judges have the power to decide what a law means for themselves. Despite not being accountable to the people, judges will be able to expand their role into the realm of policymaking.
You can bet that big corporations will “forum shop” for judges that will minimize any and all public protections that prevent big corporations from maximizing their profits.
“In one fell swoop, the majority today gives itself exclusive power over every open issue — no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden — involving the meaning of regulatory law,” wrote Justice Elena Kagan in her dissent from the ruling. “As if it did not have enough on its plate, the majority turns itself into the country’s administrative czar.”
Trump Republicans and their corporate backers use terms like the “deep state” or “administrative state” or “unelected bureaucrats” so Americans will come to view regulations as anti-democratic and anti-capitalist.
The truth is just the opposite. Big corporations and their executives are accountable only to their shareholders, not to the public. What’s really anti-democratic is allowing them freer rein to make more profit by harming the public.
Nor are regulations anti-capitalist. In fact, regulations save capitalism from its own excesses. Many of today’s regulatory agencies — the FDA, SEC, NLRB, and so on — are legacies of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration, when the Great Depression exposed the weaknesses of unfettered capitalism. Because of those regulations, America did not succumb to fascism or communism during the 1930s, as did other nations.
Trump has always wanted us to believe that “expertise” is bad — that facts, analysis, and science cannot be trusted.
You’ll remember that as president he launched direct attacks on scientists, engineers, medical specialists, lawyers, and other professionals in government who do the hard work of applying laws to specific instances through regulations. Whether the subject was climate change, environmental protection, worker safety, or the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump and his enablers rejected expertise.
Partly as a result, the proportion of Americans with a low level of trust in scientific expertise rose from 3 percent in 2016 to 13 percent in 2020.
Now, Trump promises to finish the job by getting rid of these public servants altogether and substituting people who are loyal to him.
To Trump and his lapdogs, agency expertise has become the reviled “deep state” — or as described in Project 2025’s transition playbook, “a sprawling federal bureaucracy that all too often is carrying out its own policy plans and preferences — or, worse yet, the policy plans and preferences of a radical, supposedly ‘woke’ faction of the country.”
In extending his tax cuts for the wealthy and big corporations, putting Musk in charge of making government more “efficient,” and warring against regulations, Trump and his Supreme Court seek to make big American corporations even more powerful and profitable. The assumption is this will make everyone better off.
It’s all another variant on the failed doctrine of “trickle-down” economics, which has proven itself a cruel hoax.
For 40 years, big corporations and the ultra-wealthy have made off like bandits while almost nothing has trickled down to the rest of us.
|
|
Right-wing U.S. media company linked to Russian propaganda effort: Dept. of Justice
Sarah K. Burris - raw story
September 4, 2024 5:31PM ET
Two RussiaToday employees were indicted this week by the Justice Department which claimed they deployed nearly $10 million to circulate RT-curated content which garnered millions of views through an online content creation company.
Commentators claimed the company the DOJ points to, but which it doesn't name, is a pro-Republican group where hosts openly promote Donald Trump.
"That company — TENET Media, which is not mentioned by name in the indictment — includes a constellation of well-known right-wing influencers, including Tim Pool, Dave Rubin and Benny Johnson, among others," The Independent wrote.
National security expert Marcy Wheeler remarked on X that among the identifying details leading many to name TENENT is the fact that both Johnston and Pool have the same number of YouTube subscribers as listed in a paragraph in the indictment.
Alan Feuer, a New York Times legal reporter, pointed out that the description of the "unnamed" company in the indictment matches verbatim the right-wing media company.
Many other news outlets and experts also named the company.
Pool interviewed Trump for his podcast where they spoke about, among other topics, the Russian invasion of Ukraine and how it could "lead to World War III."
Trump also pledged that he would give "serious consideration" to pardoning Julian Assange. Both of those are "favorite themes of Russian propaganda efforts," said one X account confirmed by legal analysts as operated by a former CIA lawyer.
The Independent wrote, "RT employees helped publish nearly 2,000 English-language videos on TikTok, Instagram, X and YouTube, where they have racked up 16 million views, according to prosecutors."
The media company claimed it was getting the cash from a "private investor," who was actually a "fictitious persona," Attorney General Merrick Garland said in the indictment.
It isn't thought the company's owners or employees knew Russia was funding the efforts.
Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco commented last month that Russian President Vladimir Putin and “his proxies” are relying on “increasingly sophisticated” efforts to interfere with the 2024 U.S. elections. She said d that the efforts are “targeting specific voter demographics and swing-state voters in an effort to manipulate presidential and congressional election outcome.”
“They’re intent on co-opting unwitting Americans on social media to push narratives advancing Russian interests,” she also said.
See the full report from The Independent.
Commentators claimed the company the DOJ points to, but which it doesn't name, is a pro-Republican group where hosts openly promote Donald Trump.
"That company — TENET Media, which is not mentioned by name in the indictment — includes a constellation of well-known right-wing influencers, including Tim Pool, Dave Rubin and Benny Johnson, among others," The Independent wrote.
National security expert Marcy Wheeler remarked on X that among the identifying details leading many to name TENENT is the fact that both Johnston and Pool have the same number of YouTube subscribers as listed in a paragraph in the indictment.
Alan Feuer, a New York Times legal reporter, pointed out that the description of the "unnamed" company in the indictment matches verbatim the right-wing media company.
Many other news outlets and experts also named the company.
Pool interviewed Trump for his podcast where they spoke about, among other topics, the Russian invasion of Ukraine and how it could "lead to World War III."
Trump also pledged that he would give "serious consideration" to pardoning Julian Assange. Both of those are "favorite themes of Russian propaganda efforts," said one X account confirmed by legal analysts as operated by a former CIA lawyer.
The Independent wrote, "RT employees helped publish nearly 2,000 English-language videos on TikTok, Instagram, X and YouTube, where they have racked up 16 million views, according to prosecutors."
The media company claimed it was getting the cash from a "private investor," who was actually a "fictitious persona," Attorney General Merrick Garland said in the indictment.
It isn't thought the company's owners or employees knew Russia was funding the efforts.
Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco commented last month that Russian President Vladimir Putin and “his proxies” are relying on “increasingly sophisticated” efforts to interfere with the 2024 U.S. elections. She said d that the efforts are “targeting specific voter demographics and swing-state voters in an effort to manipulate presidential and congressional election outcome.”
“They’re intent on co-opting unwitting Americans on social media to push narratives advancing Russian interests,” she also said.
See the full report from The Independent.
|
IT'S OBVIOUS!!!
|
'A massive tax': CNBC host corners J.D. Vance on Trump's tariff plan
David Edwards - raw story
September 12, 2024 11:37AM ET
CNBC host Andrew Ross Sorkin confronted Republican vice presidential nominee J.D. Vance because some farmers are "worried" about former President Donald Trump's plan to impose broad tariffs on imports.
In an interview on Thursday, Sorkin questioned Vance about the tariffs "because they're across the board and they're not as targeted."
"There are certain industries that, unfortunately, we don't have," the host noted, referring to the U.S.' need to rely on foreign trade.
"So when you see, for example, like a Goldman Sachs report come out suggesting that this actually becomes not just a massive tax, but a massive drain on the economy, what do you think?"
"Donald Trump is a negotiator," Vance argued. "He believes in using tariffs for negotiation, but he also does believe in using tariffs to induce more manufacturing, more capital formation in our country."
Sorkin said there was a "flip side" to broad tariffs.
"It creates an export problem because there will be retribution," he said. "I've gotten emails even in the past week from viewers of Squawk who are farmers in the Midwest who are worried, deeply worried, that depending on how these tariffs play out, that it's actually going to affect them on the opposite end."
Trump said the "ridiculous predictions" came from "people who have an axe to grind against Donald Trump."
"I'm, of course, not saying the farmers fall into that category, but when did America, for the first time maybe in our history, become a net food importer, meaning we need to take in more food than we produce ourselves?" Vance remarked. "2023, under the policies of Kamala Harris."
"When Donald Trump was president and doing all these things that certain pundits say are going to lead to terrible outcomes, what actually happened?" he added. "America was a net food exporter. We grew more of our food than we needed. That is an important thing."
According to many reports, the Department of Agriculture announced the U.S. became a net food importer for the first time in 2023.
In an interview on Thursday, Sorkin questioned Vance about the tariffs "because they're across the board and they're not as targeted."
"There are certain industries that, unfortunately, we don't have," the host noted, referring to the U.S.' need to rely on foreign trade.
"So when you see, for example, like a Goldman Sachs report come out suggesting that this actually becomes not just a massive tax, but a massive drain on the economy, what do you think?"
"Donald Trump is a negotiator," Vance argued. "He believes in using tariffs for negotiation, but he also does believe in using tariffs to induce more manufacturing, more capital formation in our country."
Sorkin said there was a "flip side" to broad tariffs.
"It creates an export problem because there will be retribution," he said. "I've gotten emails even in the past week from viewers of Squawk who are farmers in the Midwest who are worried, deeply worried, that depending on how these tariffs play out, that it's actually going to affect them on the opposite end."
Trump said the "ridiculous predictions" came from "people who have an axe to grind against Donald Trump."
"I'm, of course, not saying the farmers fall into that category, but when did America, for the first time maybe in our history, become a net food importer, meaning we need to take in more food than we produce ourselves?" Vance remarked. "2023, under the policies of Kamala Harris."
"When Donald Trump was president and doing all these things that certain pundits say are going to lead to terrible outcomes, what actually happened?" he added. "America was a net food exporter. We grew more of our food than we needed. That is an important thing."
According to many reports, the Department of Agriculture announced the U.S. became a net food importer for the first time in 2023.
Welcome to RepublicanDebt.org
This site tracks the current Republican Debt.
The Republican Debt is how much of the national debt of the United States
is attributable to
the presidencies of Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush,
George W. Bush, Donald J. Trump,
and
the Republican fiscal policy of Borrow-And-Spend.
As of Thursday, September 5, 2024 at 4:23:31PM PT,
The Current Republican Debt is:
$16,869,628,536,969.90
which means that in a total of 24 years,
these four presidents have led to the creation of
94.75%
of the entire national debt
in only 9.6774% of the 248 years of the existence of the United States of America.
nothing has changed!!!
Black borrowers' mortgage applications denied twice as often as whites', report shows
Andrea Riquier
USA TODAY
9/8/2024
Mortgage applications from borrowers of color are denied significantly more frequently than those from white borrowers, a recent analysis shows.
In 2023, 27.2% of Black applicants were denied a mortgage, more than double the 13.4% of white borrowers. That's a full 10 percentage points higher than borrowers of all races, according to the analysis of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act from the Urban Institute’s Housing Finance Policy Center.
The application data confirms deep disparities in mortgage financing that show up elsewhere in the housing market: Black borrowers accounted for only 8.5% of all purchase mortgage borrowers in 2023, for example - also according to HMDA. Meanwhile, in 2024, the Black homeownership rate is 45.3%, a whopping 30 percentage points below that of white households, at 74.4%. For Latinx households, it’s 48.5%.
Urban Institute researchers Michael Neal and Amalie Zinn were motivated to dig into the HMDA data, which many housing industry participants consider the most comprehensive data available to the public, when they saw overall denial rates shifting with recent changes in borrowing costs.
As the chart above shows, denial rates declined - meaning more mortgages were approved - in 2020 and 2021 - before ticking back up in 2022, when the Federal Reserve began hiking interest rates to cool inflation.
The Urban researchers' work shows that the racial gap doesn’t just block entry to homeownership. Black and Latinx homeowners are also denied interest rate refinances significantly more frequently: 38.4% and 37.5% of the time versus 21.8% for their white peers.
The data confirms other deep-seated inequities in the housing market, Zinn said. Among other things, borrowers of color often take out mortgages with smaller down payments, meaning they have less equity built up over time.
Cooling economy may impact vulnerable borrowers
Rates are likely on the way down again: in recent weeks, the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage has averaged a full percentage point less than it did last year at the same time, likely in anticipation of an interest-rate cut from the Federal Reserve later this month. But anyone concerned about vulnerable borrowers should pay attention to a cooling economy, Neal said.
“When you start to think about where we are in the interest rate cycle, and where we are in the broader business cycle, if you already have a degree of vulnerability, it's just going to be amplified by exactly that.”
In 2023, 27.2% of Black applicants were denied a mortgage, more than double the 13.4% of white borrowers. That's a full 10 percentage points higher than borrowers of all races, according to the analysis of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act from the Urban Institute’s Housing Finance Policy Center.
The application data confirms deep disparities in mortgage financing that show up elsewhere in the housing market: Black borrowers accounted for only 8.5% of all purchase mortgage borrowers in 2023, for example - also according to HMDA. Meanwhile, in 2024, the Black homeownership rate is 45.3%, a whopping 30 percentage points below that of white households, at 74.4%. For Latinx households, it’s 48.5%.
Urban Institute researchers Michael Neal and Amalie Zinn were motivated to dig into the HMDA data, which many housing industry participants consider the most comprehensive data available to the public, when they saw overall denial rates shifting with recent changes in borrowing costs.
As the chart above shows, denial rates declined - meaning more mortgages were approved - in 2020 and 2021 - before ticking back up in 2022, when the Federal Reserve began hiking interest rates to cool inflation.
The Urban researchers' work shows that the racial gap doesn’t just block entry to homeownership. Black and Latinx homeowners are also denied interest rate refinances significantly more frequently: 38.4% and 37.5% of the time versus 21.8% for their white peers.
The data confirms other deep-seated inequities in the housing market, Zinn said. Among other things, borrowers of color often take out mortgages with smaller down payments, meaning they have less equity built up over time.
Cooling economy may impact vulnerable borrowers
Rates are likely on the way down again: in recent weeks, the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage has averaged a full percentage point less than it did last year at the same time, likely in anticipation of an interest-rate cut from the Federal Reserve later this month. But anyone concerned about vulnerable borrowers should pay attention to a cooling economy, Neal said.
“When you start to think about where we are in the interest rate cycle, and where we are in the broader business cycle, if you already have a degree of vulnerability, it's just going to be amplified by exactly that.”
The Borowitz Report - Trump Backs Out of Debate by Claiming He Died in Helicopter Crash
8/27/2024
FALLS CHURCH, VA (The Borowitz Report)—Donald J. Trump on Tuesday backed out of a televised debate with Vice President Kamala Harris on the grounds that he died in a helicopter crash “many years ago.”
“I was on my helicopter flying over New Jersey when all of a sudden it went down,” he said. “I was with Willie Brown, who is also now dead, quite frankly.”
He said that he would never agree to a debate on ABC because the network “is very biased against dead people.”
“You look at ABC News, which might be the fakest news there is, and they don’t have a single dead person on the air,” he said. “As a dead person, I should be allowed to choose the moderator, and I would never agree to George Snuffleupagus.”
https://www.borowitzreport.com/p/trump-backs-out-of-debate-by-claiming
“I was on my helicopter flying over New Jersey when all of a sudden it went down,” he said. “I was with Willie Brown, who is also now dead, quite frankly.”
He said that he would never agree to a debate on ABC because the network “is very biased against dead people.”
“You look at ABC News, which might be the fakest news there is, and they don’t have a single dead person on the air,” he said. “As a dead person, I should be allowed to choose the moderator, and I would never agree to George Snuffleupagus.”
https://www.borowitzreport.com/p/trump-backs-out-of-debate-by-claiming
|
|
in the land of stupid!!!
THE DAILY TRASH REPORT FEATURING TODAY'S DESPICABLES
THOMAS JEFFERSON CALLED THEM "WASTE PEOPLE" AND BENJAMIN FRANKLIN CALLED THEM "RUBBISH" WE CALL THEM "MAGA PEOPLE" and the worthless media gives them a voice.
they are more accurately called euro-trash!!!
Amid 2 days of Springfield bomb threats, Ohio’s lieutenant governor posts a joke
Trump boasts he won the debate because he's 'person of extraordinary genius'
In A Tizzy, Fox News Reverts To Attacking Kamala's Laugh
When you got nothing..
Alabama officials sued for allegedly suppressing new citizens' voting rights
A coalition of voting rights groups on Friday sued the Alabama secretary of state and attorney general over a policy they say illegally targets naturalized citizens to keep them from voting in the upcoming November electio ... (ABC News)
CRAZY: Judge Rules Federal Prisoner Can Stay On Alaska Ballot
This story is wild.
Susie Madrak — crooks & liars
September 12, 2024
The judge ruled that removing Hafner from the ballot would cause significant harm to the division of elections and the public. The division would have to reprint ballots, which would cause it to miss state and federal deadlines for ballot printing. Via Alaska's News Source:
A man who is serving a 20-year prison sentence in federal prison for threatening elected officials in New Jersey has been determined eligible for November’s general election ballot for Alaska’s lone U.S. House seat.
On Tuesday, Anchorage Superior Court Judge Ian Wheeles dismissed the lawsuit brought forth by the Alaska Democratic Party to remove Democrat Eric Hafner from the ballot. With the dismissal, Hafner will run for the U.S. House seat against incumbent Rep. Mary Peltola, Republican Nick Begich, and Alaska Independence Party candidate John Wayne Howe.
The plaintiffs argued that Hafner running as a Democrat would confuse voters and -- they say -- cause harm to the Democrats by associating the party with a convicted felon.
Hafner, who previously ran for a congressional seat in Oregon while he was on the run, made credible threats to a judge and attorneys who worked against him in a Family Court case in New Jersey. Apparently he believes he will be released from prison if he wins.
A man who is serving a 20-year prison sentence in federal prison for threatening elected officials in New Jersey has been determined eligible for November’s general election ballot for Alaska’s lone U.S. House seat.
On Tuesday, Anchorage Superior Court Judge Ian Wheeles dismissed the lawsuit brought forth by the Alaska Democratic Party to remove Democrat Eric Hafner from the ballot. With the dismissal, Hafner will run for the U.S. House seat against incumbent Rep. Mary Peltola, Republican Nick Begich, and Alaska Independence Party candidate John Wayne Howe.
The plaintiffs argued that Hafner running as a Democrat would confuse voters and -- they say -- cause harm to the Democrats by associating the party with a convicted felon.
Hafner, who previously ran for a congressional seat in Oregon while he was on the run, made credible threats to a judge and attorneys who worked against him in a Family Court case in New Jersey. Apparently he believes he will be released from prison if he wins.
the stupid are many!!
Should Billionaires Exist?
by Robert Reich | the smirking chimp
May 4, 2024 - 6:07am
Do billionaires have a right to exist?
America has driven more than 650 species to extinction. And it should do the same to billionaires.
Why? Because there are only five ways to become one, and they’re all bad for free-market capitalism:
1. Exploit a Monopoly.
Jamie Dimon is worth $2 billion today… but not because he succeeded in the “free market.” In 2008, the government bailed out his bank JPMorgan and other giant Wall Street banks, keeping them off the endangered species list.
This government “insurance policy” scored these struggling Mom-and-Pop megabanks an estimated $34 billion a year.
But doesn’t entrepreneur Jeff Bezos deserve his billions for building Amazon?
No, because he also built a monopoly that’s been charged by the federal government and 17 states for inflating prices, overcharging sellers, and stifling competition like a predator in the wild.
With better anti-monopoly enforcement, Bezos would be worth closer to his fair-market value.
2. Exploit Inside Information
Steven A. Cohen, worth roughly $20 billion headed a hedge fund charged by the Justice Department with insider trading “on a scale without known precedent.” Another innovator!
Taming insider trading would level the investing field between the C Suite and Main Street.
3. Buy Off Politicians
That’s a great way to become a billionaire! The Koch family and Koch Industries saved roughly $1 billion a year from the Trump tax cut they and allies spent $20 million lobbying for. What a return on investment!
If we had tougher lobbying laws, political corruption would go extinct.
4. Defraud Investors
Adam Neumann conned investors out of hundreds of millions for WeWork, an office-sharing startup. WeWork didn’t make a nickel of profit, but Neumann still funded his extravagant lifestyle, including a $60 million private jet. Not exactly “sharing.”
Elizabeth Holmes was convicted of fraud for her blood-testing company, Theranos. So was Sam Bankman-Fried of crypto-exchange FTX. Remember a supposed billionaire named Donald Trump? He was also found to have committed fraud.
Presumably, if we had tougher anti-fraud laws, more would be caught and there’d be fewer billionaires to preserve.
5. Get Money From Rich Relatives
About 60 percent of all wealth in America today is inherited.
That’s because loopholes in U.S. tax law —lobbied for by the wealthy — allow rich families to avoid taxes on assets they inherit. And the estate tax has been so defanged that fewer than 0.2 percent of estates have paid it in recent years.
Tax reform would disrupt the circle of life for the rich, stopping them from automatically becoming billionaires at their birth, or someone else’s death.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not arguing against big rewards for entrepreneurs and inventors. But do today’s entrepreneurs really need billions of dollars? Couldn’t they survive on a measly hundred million?
Because they’re now using those billions to erode American institutions. They spent fortunes bringing Supreme Court justices with them into the wild.They treated news organizations and social media platforms like prey, and they turned their relationships with politicians into patronage troughs.
This has created an America where fewer than ever can become millionaires (or even thousandaires) through hard work and actual innovation.
If capitalism were working properly, billionaires would have gone the way of the dodo.
America has driven more than 650 species to extinction. And it should do the same to billionaires.
Why? Because there are only five ways to become one, and they’re all bad for free-market capitalism:
1. Exploit a Monopoly.
Jamie Dimon is worth $2 billion today… but not because he succeeded in the “free market.” In 2008, the government bailed out his bank JPMorgan and other giant Wall Street banks, keeping them off the endangered species list.
This government “insurance policy” scored these struggling Mom-and-Pop megabanks an estimated $34 billion a year.
But doesn’t entrepreneur Jeff Bezos deserve his billions for building Amazon?
No, because he also built a monopoly that’s been charged by the federal government and 17 states for inflating prices, overcharging sellers, and stifling competition like a predator in the wild.
With better anti-monopoly enforcement, Bezos would be worth closer to his fair-market value.
2. Exploit Inside Information
Steven A. Cohen, worth roughly $20 billion headed a hedge fund charged by the Justice Department with insider trading “on a scale without known precedent.” Another innovator!
Taming insider trading would level the investing field between the C Suite and Main Street.
3. Buy Off Politicians
That’s a great way to become a billionaire! The Koch family and Koch Industries saved roughly $1 billion a year from the Trump tax cut they and allies spent $20 million lobbying for. What a return on investment!
If we had tougher lobbying laws, political corruption would go extinct.
4. Defraud Investors
Adam Neumann conned investors out of hundreds of millions for WeWork, an office-sharing startup. WeWork didn’t make a nickel of profit, but Neumann still funded his extravagant lifestyle, including a $60 million private jet. Not exactly “sharing.”
Elizabeth Holmes was convicted of fraud for her blood-testing company, Theranos. So was Sam Bankman-Fried of crypto-exchange FTX. Remember a supposed billionaire named Donald Trump? He was also found to have committed fraud.
Presumably, if we had tougher anti-fraud laws, more would be caught and there’d be fewer billionaires to preserve.
5. Get Money From Rich Relatives
About 60 percent of all wealth in America today is inherited.
That’s because loopholes in U.S. tax law —lobbied for by the wealthy — allow rich families to avoid taxes on assets they inherit. And the estate tax has been so defanged that fewer than 0.2 percent of estates have paid it in recent years.
Tax reform would disrupt the circle of life for the rich, stopping them from automatically becoming billionaires at their birth, or someone else’s death.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not arguing against big rewards for entrepreneurs and inventors. But do today’s entrepreneurs really need billions of dollars? Couldn’t they survive on a measly hundred million?
Because they’re now using those billions to erode American institutions. They spent fortunes bringing Supreme Court justices with them into the wild.They treated news organizations and social media platforms like prey, and they turned their relationships with politicians into patronage troughs.
This has created an America where fewer than ever can become millionaires (or even thousandaires) through hard work and actual innovation.
If capitalism were working properly, billionaires would have gone the way of the dodo.
a congress of traitors, thieves, grifters!!!
elected officials who owe their offices to stupid voters and the greedy
Ron Johnson slams Democrats for 'dividing this nation' by not endorsing Trump
Trump Seriously Just CONFESSED To His WORST CRIME!
Trump just confessed to his biggest con ever & right-wing maniacs are freaking out about it.
Princess Bestowed $900 Concert Tickets Upon Scammy Sam Alito
It's like a fairy tale!
Susie Madrak — crooks & liars
September 8, 2024
Sam Alito reported Friday that he accepted $900 worth of concert tickets from Gloria von Thurn und Taxis, a German princess (I swear to God I'm not making this up) known for her conservative Catholic views, but didn't report any trips paid for by other people. Don't they love him, too? Via the Washington Post:
Alito continues to own individual stock in more than two dozen companies — a practice that is permitted, but that transparency advocates caution can lead to conflicts of interest that require recusal from key cases. The justice reported owning stock in Abbott Laboratories, Boeing and ConocoPhillips, among several other companies.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. is the only other member of the high court who owns individual stocks; most other justices invest in mutual funds.
Alito’s 2023 disclosure report was made public nearly three months after the reports by the rest of the justices; he requested an extension to file, as he has done in previous years.
Previously labled "Princess TNT" by Vanity Fair, she toned down her punk-rock ways after her husband, a big party animal, died. He left her broke and she scraped and clawed her way back into wealth and became a conservative Catholic. As one does! She's a big supporter of the extremist AfD, the far-right German party. (Two of the party's leaders are under investigation for taking foreign money.) So not a Nazi, but perhaps Nazi-ish. She and Alito probably have a lot in common.
Alito continues to own individual stock in more than two dozen companies — a practice that is permitted, but that transparency advocates caution can lead to conflicts of interest that require recusal from key cases. The justice reported owning stock in Abbott Laboratories, Boeing and ConocoPhillips, among several other companies.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. is the only other member of the high court who owns individual stocks; most other justices invest in mutual funds.
Alito’s 2023 disclosure report was made public nearly three months after the reports by the rest of the justices; he requested an extension to file, as he has done in previous years.
Previously labled "Princess TNT" by Vanity Fair, she toned down her punk-rock ways after her husband, a big party animal, died. He left her broke and she scraped and clawed her way back into wealth and became a conservative Catholic. As one does! She's a big supporter of the extremist AfD, the far-right German party. (Two of the party's leaders are under investigation for taking foreign money.) So not a Nazi, but perhaps Nazi-ish. She and Alito probably have a lot in common.
|
|
Bites from Real News
*9/14/2024*
*Project 2025 Holds a Plan to Make Prosecutors Do the Bidding of the Right
Deep in Project 2025 is a measure to repress democratically elected district attorneys.
*Americans' low confidence in food safety
Following massive recalls and outbreaks, Americans are losing confidence in food safety regulations
A Gallup poll has found that consumers' confidence in food safety has dropped by 23 points between 2006 to 2024
*In Texas, Racist Conspiracy Theories Fuel Suppression of Latino Voters
House candidate Cecilia Castellano tells Truthout Ken Paxton’s investigations into voter fraud are a “partisan attack.”
*Project 2025 Holds a Plan to Make Prosecutors Do the Bidding of the Right
Deep in Project 2025 is a measure to repress democratically elected district attorneys.
*Samuel Alito
The princess and the judge: Samuel Alito’s ties to a German aristocrat who defends the far right The US supreme court justice accepted $900 concert tickets from billionaire Gloria von Thurn und Taxis. Who is the socialite linked to rightwing networks?
*Oregon’s Largest Natural Gas Company Said It Was Going Green. It Sells as Much Fossil Fuel as Before.
NW Natural told Oregonians it had a new source of clean energy: renewable natural gas. Industry documents obtained by ProPublica reveal how the company has, for years, perpetuated its core fossil fuel business while painting a picture of going green.
*One of the Nation’s Largest Auto Lenders Told Customers, “We’re Here to Help.” Then It Took Their Money and Their Cars.
CarMax partner Exeter Finance makes high-interest loans to people with troubled financial histories. It allows borrowers to skip payments but often adds thousands of dollars in new charges — costs that customers say Exeter didn’t tell them about.
*The NYPD Is Tossing Out Hundreds of Misconduct Cases — Including Stop-and-Frisks — Without Even Looking at Them
The department has killed more than 400 cases of alleged misconduct this year that an oversight board had investigated and substantiated. It’s part of a lax attitude toward discipline under the current police commissioner, Edward Caban, critics say.
*Israel Has Killed 1 Palestinian Child Every 2 Days in West Bank Since October
One-fifth of children Israel has killed in the West Bank in the last quarter century have been killed in the past year.
*Israel Bombed 16 Schools in Gaza in Past 6 Weeks, Rights Group Says
Roughly 630,000 children in Gaza were supposed to start a new school year this week.
*California Drinking Water Regulations Are Putting Cost Over People’s Safety Polluters and utility groups have repeatedly stymied efforts to impose stricter limits on contaminants.
*Native Boarding Schools Were Genocidal — Healing Starts With Telling the Truth True healing must center the Indigenous ways of being that these genocidal institutions tried to extinguish.
*Post-Dobbs, abortions later in pregnancy
Abortion bans are pushing people to terminate later in pregnancy
Abortion clinic providers say barriers to access reproductive care is delaying abortion to later in pregnancy
*These Household Brands Want to Redefine What Counts as “Recyclable”
From Coke to Clorox, ProPublica contacted all 51 companies on the Consumer Brands Association board of directors to ask if they agreed with the group’s proposed redefinition of “recyclable” plastic. Most did not respond. None said they disagreed.
Springfield Woman Who Sparked Pet-Eating Rumors Regrets Her Actions
‘I’M NOT A RACIST’(of course not, just stupid!)
Lily Mae Lazarus
Journalist
Published Sep. 14, 2024 11:58AM EDT
DAILY BEAST CHEAT SHEET
The social media user who posted one of the first allegations of Haitian migrants kidnapping and eating household pets in Springfield, Ohio said she regrets spreading unfounded claims that shot the small town into the national spotlight. “It just exploded into something I didn’t mean to happen,” Erika Lee, a Springfield resident, told NBC News on Friday. She told the outlet “I’m not a racist” before adding that her daughter is half Black and she herself is mixed race and a member of the LGBTQ community. In a since deleted Facebook post, Lee misstated that a neighbor’s cat that went missing was allegedly poached by Haitian neighbors. Her story and additional false claims from other social media users were found not to have any merit. Despite local police and city officials repeatedly saying there is no evidence to support the pet-eating rumors, Donald Trump and his running mate JD Vance have trumpeted the baseless allegations. On Thursday, anti-immigrant rhetoric conspiracies led to bomb threats being made “to multiple facilities throughout” in Springfield, reportedly lodged by an individual claiming to be a city resident frustrated by the influx of Haitian immigrants to the area in recent years.
The VP With the Bluetooth Pearl Earrings: Trump Pushes Conspiracy Theory
EAR WE GO AGAIN
Mathew Murphy
Senior News Editor
Published Sep. 14, 2024 11:46AM EDT
DAILY BEAST CHEAT SHEET
Former president Donald Trump has started pushing the conspiracy theories that first started online that Kamala Harris’ pearl earrings were actually a bluetooth earpiece. “I hear she got the questions and I also heard she had something in the ear. A lil something in the ear—‘No Kamala do this. Say it this way, Kamala. Ok, be quiet, too many people watching,’” Trump said at his Las Vegas rally on Friday. ABC has already denied that Harris got any advantage in the lead-up to the debate, telling the Daily Beast, “Absolutely not... Harris was not given any questions before the debate.” The MAGAverse suggested online that Harris’ earrings were not from Tiffany but instead were a pair of NOVA H1 Audio Earrings offered by German tech/design brand Icebach Sound Solutions.
the key to republican support
*What's Inside*
AMERICA IS STILL HAUNTED BY THE GHOST OF RONALD REAGAN'S CORRUPTION
america
ROBERT REICH DEBUNKS THE MYTH THAT 'THE RICH DESERVE TO BE RICH'
reality
THE MOST COMMON ESSENTIAL JOBS IN THE US DON’T PAY A LIVING WAGE
THE ECONOMY IS IMPROVING, BUT INEQUALITY IS TEARING THE US APART. DEMOCRATS IGNORE WORKING-CLASS PAIN AT THEIR PERIL.(SLAVERY 21ST CENTURY)
SHATTERING DECEPTIVE MIRRORS: YOUNGER GENERATIONS HAVE THE CHANCE TO BUCK THE BEAUTY INDUSTRY SCAM(REALITY)
BOTTLED WATER CONTAINS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PLASTIC BITS: STUDY
REALITY
THE GREAT MEDICARE ADVANTAGE MARKETING SCAM
CORPORATE CRIMINALS
2023 SAW RECORD KILLINGS BY US POLICE. WHO IS MOST IMPACTED?
GESTAPO USA
AMERICA HAS NEVER BEEN UNITED. SO HOW DO WE MOVE FORWARD TOGETHER?
COMMENTARY
MEDICARE ADVANTAGE PLANS: THE HIDDEN DANGERS AND THREATS TO PATIENT CARE
REALITY
A NEW STUDY DESCRIBES IN GROTESQUE DETAIL THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE ULTRARICH HAVE PERVERTED THE CHARITABLE GIVING INDUSTRY.
REALITY
HOW TRUMP AND BUSH TAX CUTS FOR BILLIONAIRES BROKE AMERICA
REALITY
FROM 1947 TO 2023: RETRACING THE COMPLEX, TRAGIC ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT
REALITY
RED STATE CONSERVATIVES ARE DYING THANKS TO THE PEOPLE THEY VOTE FOR
REALITY
HOW TEXAS BECAME THE NEW "HOMEBASE" FOR WHITE NATIONALIST AND NEO-NAZI GROUPS
AMERICA
HOW THE GOP SUCKERED AMERICA ON TAX CUTS
REALITY
enduring commentary
How stupidity is an existential threat to America
Bobby Azarian, Raw Story
May 31, 2024 7:00AM ET
It may sound like an insensitive statement, but the cold hard truth is that there are a lot of stupid people in the world, and their stupidity presents a constant danger to others. Some of these people are in positions of power, and some of them have been elected to run our country. A far greater number of them do not have positions of power, but they still have the power to vote, and the power to spread their ideas. We may have heard of “collective intelligence,” but there is also “collective stupidity,” and it is a force with equal influence on the world. It would not be a stretch to say that at this point in time, stupidity presents an existential threat to America because, in some circles, it is being celebrated.
Although the term "stupidity" may seem derogatory or insulting, it is actually a scientific concept that refers to a specific type of cognitive failure. It is important to realize that stupidity is not simply a lack of intelligence or knowledge, but rather a failure to use one's cognitive abilities effectively. This means that you can be “smart” while having a low IQ, or no expertise in anything. It is often said that “you can’t fix stupid,” but that is not exactly true. By becoming aware of the limitations of our natural intelligence or our ignorance, we can adjust our reasoning, behavior, and decision-making to account for our intellectual shortcomings.
To demonstrate that stupidity does not mean having a low IQ, consider the case of Richard Branson, the billionaire CEO of Virgin Airlines, who is one of the world’s most successful businessmen. Branson has said that he was seen as the dumbest person in school, and has admitted to having dyslexia, a learning disability that affects one’s ability to read and correctly interpret written language. But it wasn’t just reading comprehension that was the problem — “Math just didn’t make sense to me,” Branson has said. “I would certainly have failed an IQ test.”
So, what is responsible for his enormous success, both financially and in terms of being a prolific innovator? Branson attributes his success to surrounding himself with highly knowledgeable and extremely competent people. Branson’s smarts come from his ability to recognize his own limitations, and to know when to defer to others on topics or tasks where he lacks sufficient knowledge or skill.
This means you don’t have to be traditionally intelligent or particularly knowledgeable to be successful in life, make good decisions, have good judgment, and be a positive influence on the world. Stupidity is a consequence of a failure to be awareof one’s own limitations, and this type of cognitive failure has a scientific name: the Dunning-Kruger effect.
The Dunning-Kruger effect is a well-known psychological phenomenon that describes the tendency for individuals to overestimate their level of intelligence, knowledge, or competence in a particular area. They may also simultaneously misjudge the intelligence, expertise, or competence of others. In other words, they are ignorant of their own ignorance. The effect has been widely written about, and investigated empirically, with hundreds of studies published in peer-reviewed journals confirming and analyzing the phenomenon, particularly in relation to the dangers it poses in certain contexts.
It is easy to think of examples in which failing to recognize one’s own ignorance can become dangerous. Take for example when people with no medical training try to provide medical advice. It doesn’t take much Internet searching to find some nutritionist from the “alternative medicine” world who is claiming that some herbal ingredient has the power to cure cancer. Some of these people are scam artists, but many of them truly believe that they have a superior understanding of health and physiology. There are many people who trust these self-proclaimed experts, and there is no doubt that some have paid with their lives for it.
What’s particularly disturbing about the Dunning-Kruger effect is that people are attracted to confident leaders, so politicians are incentivized to be overconfident in their beliefs and opinions, and to overstate their expertise. For example, Donald Trump — despite not having any real understanding of what causes cancer — suggested that the noise from wind turbines is causing cancer (a claim that is not supported by any empirical studies). It is well documented that on topics ranging from pandemics to climate change, Trump routinely dismissed the opinions of the professionals who have dedicated their lives to understanding those phenomena, because he thought that he knew better. It’s bad enough that politicians like Donald Trump and Marjorie Taylor Greene don’t recognize their own ignorance and fail to exercise the appropriate amount of caution when making claims that can affect public health and safety — but what is really disturbing is that they are being celebrated for their overconfidence (i.e., stupidity).
Although the term "stupidity" may seem derogatory or insulting, it is actually a scientific concept that refers to a specific type of cognitive failure. It is important to realize that stupidity is not simply a lack of intelligence or knowledge, but rather a failure to use one's cognitive abilities effectively. This means that you can be “smart” while having a low IQ, or no expertise in anything. It is often said that “you can’t fix stupid,” but that is not exactly true. By becoming aware of the limitations of our natural intelligence or our ignorance, we can adjust our reasoning, behavior, and decision-making to account for our intellectual shortcomings.
To demonstrate that stupidity does not mean having a low IQ, consider the case of Richard Branson, the billionaire CEO of Virgin Airlines, who is one of the world’s most successful businessmen. Branson has said that he was seen as the dumbest person in school, and has admitted to having dyslexia, a learning disability that affects one’s ability to read and correctly interpret written language. But it wasn’t just reading comprehension that was the problem — “Math just didn’t make sense to me,” Branson has said. “I would certainly have failed an IQ test.”
So, what is responsible for his enormous success, both financially and in terms of being a prolific innovator? Branson attributes his success to surrounding himself with highly knowledgeable and extremely competent people. Branson’s smarts come from his ability to recognize his own limitations, and to know when to defer to others on topics or tasks where he lacks sufficient knowledge or skill.
This means you don’t have to be traditionally intelligent or particularly knowledgeable to be successful in life, make good decisions, have good judgment, and be a positive influence on the world. Stupidity is a consequence of a failure to be awareof one’s own limitations, and this type of cognitive failure has a scientific name: the Dunning-Kruger effect.
The Dunning-Kruger effect is a well-known psychological phenomenon that describes the tendency for individuals to overestimate their level of intelligence, knowledge, or competence in a particular area. They may also simultaneously misjudge the intelligence, expertise, or competence of others. In other words, they are ignorant of their own ignorance. The effect has been widely written about, and investigated empirically, with hundreds of studies published in peer-reviewed journals confirming and analyzing the phenomenon, particularly in relation to the dangers it poses in certain contexts.
It is easy to think of examples in which failing to recognize one’s own ignorance can become dangerous. Take for example when people with no medical training try to provide medical advice. It doesn’t take much Internet searching to find some nutritionist from the “alternative medicine” world who is claiming that some herbal ingredient has the power to cure cancer. Some of these people are scam artists, but many of them truly believe that they have a superior understanding of health and physiology. There are many people who trust these self-proclaimed experts, and there is no doubt that some have paid with their lives for it.
What’s particularly disturbing about the Dunning-Kruger effect is that people are attracted to confident leaders, so politicians are incentivized to be overconfident in their beliefs and opinions, and to overstate their expertise. For example, Donald Trump — despite not having any real understanding of what causes cancer — suggested that the noise from wind turbines is causing cancer (a claim that is not supported by any empirical studies). It is well documented that on topics ranging from pandemics to climate change, Trump routinely dismissed the opinions of the professionals who have dedicated their lives to understanding those phenomena, because he thought that he knew better. It’s bad enough that politicians like Donald Trump and Marjorie Taylor Greene don’t recognize their own ignorance and fail to exercise the appropriate amount of caution when making claims that can affect public health and safety — but what is really disturbing is that they are being celebrated for their overconfidence (i.e., stupidity).
