Trump the Barely-Billionaire

Outlets are reporting that Trump has "counter-offered" to come up with a $100 million dollar cash bond backed by the existence of his "vast portfolio" of real estate in his New York State civil fraud judgment.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-cannot-line-full-bond-170009953.html

Per New York State law, a defendant appealing a civil judgement must still come up with a bond for the ENTIRE judgement FIRST in order to appeal it. AND they must continue paying interest on that amount during whatever period of time elapses for the appeal to be resolved.

This "counter-offer" essentially means Trump does not have the $454 million ($355 million for his original penalty plus 9% accrued interest since the inception of the original charges balloons to $454 million). Of course, this also means he doesn't have the $83 million plus interest to post a bond to appeal the E. Jean Carrol civil judgement either. In that case, he's already "counter-offered" to pay a $24 million dollar bond.

Now we will really get to see our two-tiered justice system in action. Will this tussle between a "rich" defendant and the state court system of New York morph into some national / federal case of "free speech" being impaired by a rich guy running for President suddenly having to divert personal money away from a national campaign to cover personal financial obligations? Will some other bizarre interpretation or completely fabricated theory of law come out of the woodwork to take a rich guy off the hook? Or will the court system stick to long-established practices applied to millions of "little guys" and apply them equally to one "big guy" with a really big mouth?

From a financial standpoint, these counter-offers can be interpreted two ways. One is that Trump simply doesn't understand that rules apply to him, that everything is a negotiation or deal and that he still thinks he can avoid normal processes simply because he's an ex-President. The other is that Trump is likely FAR less wealthy than he has claimed. He is basically saying he's a multi-billionaire who cannot come up with more than $125 million in cash, even though if his legal team had a brain cell among the collective, they knew this financial pressure would be exerted as these civil verdicts started coming in. It's not like Trump only had 30 days' notice to find this money. These cases have been in litigation for MONTHS and were NEVER looking like they would swing in his favor from Day One. And the fraud trial cited a targeted judgement amount up front of $383 million, enough to get any accountant's attention.

Of course, these interpretations are not mutually exclusive. Trump DOES think that everything including crime is negotiable and Trump is likely a barely-billionaire rather than a comfortably set multibillionaire.

WTH

A New Model for Organized Crime

Who saw this coming?

The minute Donald Trump began rumbling about changing the leadership of the Republican National Committee, the conflicts of interest and motivation for the change became apparent. Trump wanted more control over the RNC both because a) he cannot stand to see a single dime spent talking about any other Republican other than Donald Trump and because b) any Republican cash is Donald Trump cash that can be used for his legal bills.

Now, his designated replacement RNC chair and daughter-in-law Lara Trump is saying the inside words outside:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/lara-trump-says-rnc-needs-raise-500-mln-does-not-rule-out-paying-trump-legal-2024-02-22/

Lara Trump, who Donald Trump has endorsed to be the new co-chair of the Republican National Committee, said on Wednesday that the organization needed to raise $500 million for the 2024 general election and did not rule out using raised funds to pay her father-in-law's mounting legal fees.

Warning that the Democratic Party was flush with cash, Trump's daughter-in-law said the party needed a strong fundraising push to help Trump in his bid to return to the White House and for congressional races also up for grabs.

Let's do some math. Trump has four different criminal cases pending (the "Stormy" indictment, the national security documents indictment, the Georgia racketeering indictment and the January 6 indictment) and three civil trials (defamation #1, defamation #2, NYS business records). The three civil trials have progressed the furthest with the most actual courtroom activity and Trump spent over $50,000,000 in a single year on legal fees. As the others reach more critical phases, expenses for those cases will skyrocket as well. A little 8th grade algebra can help estimate his future legal bills by extrapolating from his current legal bills.

• assume lowest burn rate is a pending civil case
• assume active civil case in trial is 2x pendingcivil
• assume pendingcriminal case is 1.5x pendingcivil
• assume activecriminal case is 2x activecivil

Trump spent $50,000,000 on 3 active civil cases and 4 pending criminal cases in 2023. That allows a rough estimate of the basic burn rate that can cascade through these complexity multipliers.

$50M = (4 x pendingcriminal) + (3 x activecivil)
     = (4 x 1.5 x pendingcivil) + (3 x 2 x pendingcivil)
     = 6 x pendingcivil + 6 x pendingcivil = 12 x pendingcivil

Thus

   pendingcivil burn = $50 M / 12 = $4,166,667

He is heading into a period where his appeals on the civil losses will be active AND at least two of the criminal cases might be active over the next six months.

   burn = ( 3 x activecivil) + (2 x activecriminal) + (2 x pendingcriminal)
        = ( 3 x 2 x pendingcivil) + (2 x 2 x activecivil) + (2 x 1.5 x pendingcivil)
        = ( 6 x pendingcivil) + (4 x 2 x pendingcivil) + ( 3 x pendingcivil)
        = 17 x pending civil = 17 x $4,166,667 = $70,833,333

If all four of the criminal trials become "active" in the same period,

   burn = ( 3 x activecivil) + (4 x activecriminal)
        = ( 3 x 2 x pendingcivil) + (4 x 2 x activecivil)
        = ( 6 x pendingcivil) + (8 x 2 x pendingcivil)
        = 22 x pending civil = 22 x $4,166,667 = $91,666,674

This doesn't include the accruing interest on the $5 million dollar defamation judgement, the $83 million dollar defamation judgement or the $355 million dollar civil fraud judgement, which are accruing interest at NINE PERCENT per year. He has zero chance to win an appeal on those judgements so continuing to litigate them only racks up more in interest charges prior to final settlement. That interest is $39,870,000 per year.

If you believe this math, that's over $130,000,000 in legal bills and INTEREST on civil penalty costs in one year.

These are very crude numbers but they point out the STAGGERING cash flow required to continue the multiple legal charades in play throughout the entire judiciary to defend Trump. They also highlight the STAGGERING conflict of interest between any individual in the predicament to NEED this much legal counsel and the supposed interests of politicians claiming to operate within a political party who have surrendered that party to the will of one person.

This story is newsworthy on two fronts.

First, it strongly suggests that any national Republican fundraising will be essentially confiscated by Trump for promoting himself or covering his legal bills. Having the vast majority of national party dollars absorbed by Trump will cripple Republican campaign efforts for House and Senate in swing states which could return control of both branches of Congress to Democrats, even if Trump was able to somehow win. It seems pretty clear that the Republican zombies who have sworn off any independent thought are clueless about this dynamic and its impact on ALL Republican candidates.

Second, the possibility that national party funds would be absconded by the de facto party head for use in paying legal bills related to PERSONAL crimes and torts having NOTHING TO DO with running for office should be a wakeup call to everyone. This plan on the part of Trump is a new model for organized crime. It's essentially crowd-sourced racketeering. Raising tens / hundreds of millions of dollars and using the loot to fund defenses against prior crimes while remaining out of jail to commit dozens more while clogging up the entire judicial system all the way up to a corrupt Supreme Court. It's the hip new model for organized crime. It's (open source) + (flash mob) + (online commerce). It's https://gofundmycrimespree.com

WTH

Innovations in Gerrymandering

News outlets covered a major change in the state of Wisconsin regarding extreme gerrymandering and the balance of power between Republicans and Democrats. Wisconsin State Supreme Court rulings and considerable effort on the part of Democrats finally rolled back existing district maps that resulted in a roughly evenly divided state having nearly a two thirds majority of Republicans in both its Assembly and Senate as well as its US House delegation. The new maps for Wisconsin's 8 US Congressional districts, 99 State Assembly districts and 33 State Senate districts are now expected to have an even number of Republican versus Democratic leaning districts and about fourteen toss-ups at the State Assembly level. That reversion to a level playing field was hailed as a major win with huge impacts for the state and Congress.

Despite occasional wins like that, the march on democracy is still well underway across the country as Republicans attempt to cement non-representative states of existence in place in the face of coming demographic changes. One new tactic being adopted involves extending the effect of gerrymandering by applying district-level rules to statewide votes. In the Missouri Legislature, Senate Joint Resolution SJR 74 introduced by Republican Mary Elizabeth Coleman was approved by the Senate on February 20, 2024 and calls for an amendment to appear on the November 2024 general election ballot to alter existing constitutional rules for approving future constitutional amendments, whether originating in the Legislature, a constitutional convention or voter initiatives.

Here is a link to the resolution in its final Senate approved form as of February 21, 2024:

https://www.senate.mo.gov/24info/pdf-bill/perf/SJR74.pdf

Here is the wording of the amendment intended for the November 2024 ballot:

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to pass constitutional amendments proposed by initiative or convention by a statewide majority vote and a majority vote in a majority of congressional districts?

Already, there seems to be some confusion afoot about the bill because while the language references "congressional districts" which implies US House districts, press coverage of the JSR is mixed on US House versus Missouri House districts:

https://missouriindependent.com/2024/02/05/as-few-as-1-in-5-voters-could-defeat-initiative-petitions-under-missouri-senate-proposal/

https://www.kcur.org/politics-elections-and-government/2024-02-21/missouri-senate-advances-bill-making-it-harder-for-voters-to-change-the-constitution

The Missouri Independent article references 82 districts and the KCUR article references 8 districts. Regardless of which district map is intended, both district maps are heavily gerrymandered in Missouri. At the US House level, current gerrymandering by the Republican super-majority in the Missouri House and Senate results in a six to two ratio (75%) of Republican to Democratic US Representatives in a state which is likely only 55 to 60 percent Republican.

Senate Republicans in Missouri are eager to get this amendment passed because multiple changes were added to the bill to further require that only state residents vote on constitutional amendments and ban foreign parties from "interfering" with the initiative process. Of course, both of those actions are already illegal under Missouri law. Inclusion of this language was intended to make the bill appear to be correcting huge flaws in current law that would short circuit voters' analysis of the core purpose of the bill, which was to make the process of statewide votes on constitutional amendments FAR less democratic. Democrats in the Senate filibustered the bill for 20 hours in order to at least jettison that noise from the wording of the proposed amendment.

What's driving Republican interest in adding these additional roadblocks for amending the state Constitution? Republicans are concerned that voters will submit and approve a constitutional amendment providing abortion access. Even in bright red Republican Missouri, Republicans are aware that support for abortion access likely has a clear majority across the entire state but Republicans have realized that, through the magic of gerrymandering, it is possible to devise arbitrarily complicated rules that can thwart the most basic of democratic, representative principals.

Republicans clearly understand how UN-democratic this rule will be. It's not a bug to them, it's absolutely a feature. From the Missouri Independent article above (bold emphasis added):

“This will change the way we actually campaign on these issues,” said Tim Jones, state director of the Missouri Freedom Caucus, the group of GOP senators who have demanded initiative petition changes in order to allow the chamber to function. “This to me is a very similar concept to the electoral college.”

The proposal is taking on new urgency for GOP leaders because a proposal to overturn Missouri’s abortion ban could be on the ballot in November. Republicans see changing the rules as the only way to defeat it.

Opponents claim the idea undermines majority rule, which has determined the outcome of constitutional questions in Missouri since 1846.

Ever since the Dodd decision overturned Roe vs Wade rights at the federal level and Missouri enacted its statewide abortion ban, Republicans have been working to eliminate any mechanism by which voters in the state could reinstate abortion rights via constitutional amendments. In 2023, Republicans drafted Joint Resolution 43 that initially attempted to raise the majority required for constitutional amendments from the current 50% to a two-thirds majority. That threshold was later lowered to 57% before the resolution lapsed at the end of the session and failed to reach a ballot.

It is likely that Missouri Republicans have learned from watching ballot initiatives in other red states. Even for non-sophisticated voters, a constitutional amendment raising the required majority from 50% to 66% looks like a drastic, desperate change, one many voters will likely reject on a ballot. But keeping a 50% majority rule while adding a secondary requirement that most voters cannot comprehend that in fact achieves the same goal? Well, that's a perfect Republican strategy. And it seems Republicans have done the math on these types of proposals. In the Missouri Independent article above, the outlet cites its internal analysis that found with this "concurrent majority" rule enacted, it is possible for only twenty percent of the entire voting population to block any amendment.

Who said Republicans were bad at math? They seem to excel at it when it is vital to suppressing majority rule and retaining power.

WTH

Gun Crazy Missouri Republicans

After the mass shooting at the Super Bowl victory rally in Kansas City, numerous stories ran in the national media that reflected how Missouri's gun regulations are among the weakest in the nation and could logically have contributed to the shooting that took place. Of course local media, being closer to the Missouri voting public, spent relatively little time on that topic, even in metro areas since even the metro areas are surrounded by affluent Republican leaning districts with audiences who don't want their local media telling them their lax gun laws could possibly be contributing to the horror just witnessed.

To their credit, some media outlets in the state DID cover news surrounding the decision of the Missouri House Majority Leader to quietly table two gun-related bills which had just passed internal committee votes and were headed for a floor vote in the House prior to reconciliation with similar Senate bills.

Missouri House Bill 2291, proposed by Bishop Davidson (R) District 130 was written to eliminate ANY taxes on weapons and ammunition sold in Missouri.

https://house.mo.gov/Bill.aspx?bill=HB2291

1. No sales tax levied under this chapter on any firearms or ammunition shall be levied at a rate that is higher than the sales tax levied under this chapter or any other excise tax levied on any sporting goods or equipment or any hunting equipment. 2. Beginning August 28, 2024, in addition to all other exemptions granted pursuant to this chapter, there is hereby specifically exempted from the provisions of and from the computation of the tax levied, assessed, or payable pursuant to this chapter and the local sales tax law as defined in section 32.085 all sales of firearms and ammunition sold in this state.

Here is what supporters of the sales tax exemption said about their proposal, as quoted by Kansas City television station KSHB:

..this bill is intended to preserve our second amendment rights. Taxation on firearms and ammunition is an infringement on our right to bear arms. Therefore, it is unconstitutional to tax firearms and ammunition. This bill specifies that firearms and ammunition sold in this state are exempt from state and local sales tax.

Missouri House Bill 1708, last acted on February 5, 2024, proposed by Adam Schnelting, (R) District 69, is forty three pages of dense, 9-point font text that is related to public transit safety and concealed carry and is virtually unintelligible. The first six pages lay out dozens of new restrictions seemingly aimed at making public transportation of all types safer and more pleasant for the public. Those terms explicitly make it a crime to carry a concealed weapon on any form of public transportation.

https://house.mo.gov/Bill.aspx?bill=HB1708&year=2024&code=R

(11) Except as otherwise provided under section 571.107, no weapon or other instrument intended for use as a weapon may be carried in or on any facility or conveyance, except for law enforcement personnel. For the purposes hereof, a weapon shall include, but HB 1708 not be limited to, a firearm, switchblade knife, sword, or any instrument of any kind known as blackjack, billy club, club, sandbag, metal knuckles, leather bands studded with metal, wood impregnated with metal filings or razor blades; except that this subdivision shall not apply to a rifle or shotgun which is unloaded and carried in any enclosed case, box or other container which completely conceals the item from view and identification as a weapon;

Except, later in the forty three page bill, on page 21, the bill includes this language:

3. Notwithstanding any provision of this chapter or chapter 70, 577, or 578 to the contrary, a person carrying a firearm concealed on or about his or her person who is lawfully in possession of a valid concealed carry permit or endorsement shall not be prohibited or impeded from accessing or using any publicly funded transportation system and shall not be harassed or detained for carrying a concealed firearm on the property, vehicles, or conveyances owned, contracted, or leased by such systems that are accessible to the public.

In other words, it's illegal to carry a concealed weapon on public transportation unless... ...you get a concealed carry permit which is ridiculously easy to obtain under existing rules, much less any proposed changes.

Per coverage on these bills by St. Louis Public Radio, the bill's sponsor saw no problem with their content and disagreed with tabling them:

https://www.stlpr.org/government-politics-issues/2024-02-16/missouri-house-will-not-consider-two-bills-expanding-firearm-access-this-session

The legislation I have put forward is nothing more than an avenue by which law-abiding [carrying a concealed weapon] holders can protect themselves and their families... ...no new gun restrictions would have prevented the tragic event in Kansas City, as the suspects were already in violation of current firearms law.

Try, Try, Try, Try Again

Was this just a case of one-off bills with unfortunate, coincidentally horrible optics? Hardly. Republicans have been proposing nearly identical legislation to further relax concealed carry restrictions and eliminate ANY sort of taxes on guns since at least 2021. Here are some examples.

Missouri House Bill 2388, last acted on May 15, 2020, was proposed by Ron Hicks (R) District 102 proposed a tax credit to offset amounts paid in sales taxes for newly mandated gun safety mechanisms.

https://house.mo.gov/Bill.aspx?bill=HB2388&year=2020&code=R

(1) "Firearm safe", a safe approved by the department of public safety specifically for the storage of one or more firearms;
(2) "Firearm safety device", a device approved for use by the department of public safety that, when installed on a firearm, is designed to prevent the firearm from being operated without first deactivating or removing the device. Examples of firearm safety devices include, but are not limited to, firearm trigger locks and any other locks or cables designed to prevent a firearm from being operated without first deactivating or removing such locks or cables;

Missouri Senate Bill 567, proposed March 4, 2021 by Bill White (R) District 32 was the first of many bills to propose repealing all state taxes from actual weapons purchases (not just aftermarket safety equipment).

https://www.senate.mo.gov/21info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=59159653

Beginning August 28, 2021, this act provides that all sales of firearms made in this state shall be exempt from state and local sales taxes.

Missouri Senate Bill 884, proposed January 27, 2022 by Bill White (R) District 32 re-introduced the same 2021 bill in the 2022 term to repeal sales taxes related to weapons while adding expand terms for concealed carry. https://www.senate.mo.gov/22info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=71259785

Beginning August 28, 2022, this act provides that all sales of firearms made in this state shall be exempt from state and local sales taxes. This act repeals the requirement that a person must be a resident of Missouri to apply for a concealed carry permit. A concealed carry permit shall be issued by the sheriff of the county or city in which the applicant resides or by the sheriff of the county or city in which the qualified firearm safety instructor of the applicant resides if the applicant meets all other requirements.

Missouri Senate Bill 131, last acted on May 3, 2023, proposed by Rick Brattin (R) District 31 re-introduced the same tax exemption on weapons while adding a rebate for any federal excise taxes paid on weapons and ammunition.

https://www.senate.mo.gov/23info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=44637

For all tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2024, this act authorizes a tax credit for taxpayers making sales of firearms or ammunition. The tax credit shall be equal to the amount of the federal firearms and ammunition excise tax imposed on the sale of such firearms and ammunition sold by the taxpayer during the tax year.

Missouri House Bill 485, last acted on April 17, 2023, proposed by Ben Baker (R) District 160 again proposed simplification and clarification of a small number of exceptions where concealed carry would remain illegal.

https://house.mo.gov/Bill.aspx?bill=HB485&year=2023&code=R

1. A concealed carry permit issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121, a valid concealed carry endorsement issued prior to August 28, 2013, or a concealed carry endorsement or permit issued by another state or political subdivision of another state shall authorize the person in whose name the permit or endorsement is issued to carry concealed firearms on or about his or her person or vehicle throughout the state. No concealed carry permit issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121, valid concealed carry endorsement issued prior to August 28, 2013, or a concealed carry endorsement or permit issued by another state or political subdivision of another state shall authorize any person to carry concealed firearms into:
(1) Any police, sheriff, or highway patrol office or station without the consent of the chief law enforcement officer in charge of that office or station. Possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises of the office or station shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises;
(2) Within twenty-five feet of any polling place on any election day. Possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises of the polling place shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises;

Cynical Politics, Insanity or Both?

As the above history reflects, Missouri Republicans have been filing bills related to these topics for YEARS. Republicans have held super-majorities in both the Missouri House and Missouri Senate since at least 2016. Currently, Republicans hold 111 of 163 seats (68%) in the House and 24 of 34 seats (71%) in the Senate. The Missouri Governor has been a Republican since 2017. Given that election history, it's surprising that this legislation has NOT been enacted. The "tick tock" on these bills as tracked in the Missouri Legislature's online system shows these bills have consistently been approved at the committee level for consideration on the floor of both chambers. Both chambers have Republican super-majorities, so what could be keeping them from getting reconciled and signed by the governor?

Is it possible extremely savvy Democratic politicians are continuing to find parliamentary levers to exercise to kill these bills, link them to other polices Republicans won't tolerate, etc? Anything is possible but given the 70% margins in both houses, this level of parliamentary wizardry seems mathematically unlikely, especially over multiple years.

Is it possible there are a few remaining Republicans in key positions of power who are consistently identifying bills like these as unnecessary and potential future political poison and are internally scuttling them at points where they can run out the clock on the legislative session? That also seems unlikely. Candidly, these are Republicans involved.

What other dynamic could explain this yearly parade of horrible policy proposals? One dynamic comes to mind immediately when looking at the content of these bills and the dates they were proposed. Most were proposed beginning in March 2021 - AFTER a Democratic President took office. No links to bill proposals can be found PRIOR to 2020. A likely explanation is that these types of bills have little political value when a Republican holds the White House. Once a Democrat wins the White House, the "government is coming to get your guns" meme is instantly resurrected for theatrical purposes across the country.

The other option left seems to be that these issues are "dog chases car" issues for Republicans, only Republicans have become smart enough and cynical enough in their politics to avoid actually catching this particular car. They TALK about chasing the car. They go through the MOTIONS of chasing the car. They send flyers home to voters each term describing what THEY are "doing" to chase the car. They pad their political resume with all of the bills they'e PROPOSED. But they never actually CATCH the car. They just maintain the car as an ISSUE.

On the surface, that type of cynicism might seem harmless but the time spent going through the motions on what might be Potemkin legislation is squandering legislative time and public attention that is required on other issues the state needs to address, such as education, grid modernization, crumbling roads and bridges, etc. The language of these bills and the public comments from those proposing them raises its own concerns. America is AWASH with guns. There seems to be no limit on how much Americans are willing to pay for guns. Those guns are triggering hundreds of millions (maybe billions?) in emergency care and lifelong care for the roughly forty eight thousand people KILLED every year and another seventy six thousand INJURED by gunfire each year.

WHY ON EARTH would anyone conclude gun owners need to be subsidized by eliminating state sales taxes on weapons and ammunition? Why would anyone propose a state further refund any FEDERAL excise taxes imposed on weapons? Guns don't need tax subsidies to ENCOURAGE people to buy them.

How are taxes on weapons -- like any other good or service -- an infringement upon a citizen's Second Amendment rights? The Second Amendment provides a right to bear arms. It says NOTHING about the right to purchase them at a discount or avoid surcharges intended to recover some of the horrendous social costs those guns generate.

There's no learning taking place in Missouri, even after a horrendous -- and yes, embarrassing -- mass shooting that ruined what should have been a banner PR day for the state. These fetish bills will come up like clockwork in the 2025 session. The House Leader didn't say he objected to these bills, he just said the timing was obviously not good politically. There's a chance legislation this misguided WILL eventually become law in Missouri. That speaks volumes about how warped the "gun fringe" remains, not only in Missouri but across the country.

WTH

Trump's $364 Million Dollar Civil Fraud Judgment

February 16, 2024 marks yet another milestone date in American Presidential history. A final judgment was issued in the civil fraud trial in New York State against Donald Trump. With a cumulative price tag of $364 million dollars across four defendants, $355 of it against Donald Trump individually, there is much to unpack.

For reference, the entire ruling is accessible on the following link at The New York Times:

https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/ef72526861902856/1e996397-full.pdf

The top-level judgment imposes a $355 million dollar penalty on Donald Trump, a $4,013,024 dollar penalty on Donald Trump, Jr., a $4,013,024 dollar penalty on Eric Trump, and a $1 million dollar penalty on Allen Weisselberg. (Weisselberg was paid a $2 million severance by The Trump Organization as hush money so this claws back half of that severance.)

While Trump will appeal this, delaying a final, FINAL status on this case and the final financial penalties paid, the defendants will be obligated to put up a bond for the penalty amounts within 30 days if an appeal is filed. Even if Trump files an appeal, the stated interest rate he will pay on any bond will be 9%. That's $31,950,000 dollars per year just in INTEREST.

That means this ruling DOES impose an IMMEDIATE, astronomically large demand for CASH upon Donald Trump. If Trump's financial past is current events and prologue, Trump MIGHT be rich on paper but he is absolutely NOT cash rich. The vast majority of his "wealth" is tied up in real estate which is NOT a liquid asset in the best of economic circumstances (global or personal). If you have thirty days to raise $355 million dollars, you are NOT going to get top dollar on anything you are selling with a gun to your head.

This immediate demand for cash is even more dangerous to Trump than it first appears. The vast majority of his empire is debt financed and seemingly none of it is on a cashflow glide path to reach a safe, predictable payoff at future scheduled dates. Much of his financial business plan involves continually refinancing loans and deferring the inevitable recognition that the business plan is not producing cash streams able to sustain the debt load. There are likely notes coming due every year that require SOME cash to toss at banks as fees and premiums to convince them to re-finance. Already, no American banks were willing to loan him money. He now has ZERO free cash to provide those incentives. Anything he sells off to produce cash can trigger further write-downs of remaining assets which can trigger debt covenant language to call in other notes.

The ruling requires the existing Independent Monitor to provide a summary within 30 days of any additional authorities she needs to ensure compliance of the operating companies during the three year period. The language says:

Within 30 days of this Decision and Order, Judge Jones shall submit a proposed order to the Court outlining the specific authority she believes that she needs to keep defendants honest, and the obligations of defendants, to effectuate a productive and enhanced monitorship going forward.

Given the nature of the defendants, it would appear that request will need to include some sort of flux capacitor based technology to generate the energy required to reverse time and undo seventy years of criminal entropy unleashed by Trump's warped psyche.

The babysitter restrictions for external monitoring require Trump's companies to provide sixty days notice to the Independent Monitor prior to any transfer of funds between companies or any attempt to borrow new money. He cannot simply shift assets to Florida incorporated businesses and anyone offering to loan him money will undergo public supervision. This is obviously required for preventing new fraud (and potential new corruption with foreigners trying to buy influence with someone who MIGHT become President again). It also imposes significant logistical delays in ANY deal Trump needs to land to unload a property to raise cash. All of this works AGAINST Trump and FOR any potential buyer, putting MORE downward pressure on all of the assets.

Part of the judge's ruling explains the context of the penalties by describing the track record of fraud in Donald Trump's career. As the judge said in the ruling, This is not defendants' first rodeo. He goes on to itemize the 2013 suit for fraud related to Trump University costing Trump $25 million, the 2018 lawsuit for fraud related to the Donald J. Trump Foundation, a 2022 settlement between the Washington DC Office of Attorney General and Trump regarding excessive payments paid to Trump by the 58th Inaugural Committee for use of the Old Post Office building Trump operated. He then goes on to mention that WHILE UNDER TRIAL FOR THIS FRAUD, the Independent Monitor identified additional actions taken by Trump which violated the interim agreement via unauthorized transfers of moneys, etc. Perhaps the coup de grace was a mention that oh, BY THE WAY, you haven't even hired a new CFO after "firing" Allen Weisselberg so you've been operating this multi-million dollar enterprise with zero executive financial supervision.

As MSNBC commentator Andrew Weissmann put it, the requirement that Trump be banned from operating any company in the state of New York for three years and the requirement of continuous Independent Monitoring of the existing corporations raises an important point for voters in November. You're running for President to control the financial books of the entire country and a judge has ruled you cannot be trusted to touch a single aspect of one company in one state? Why should you be trusted to run the United States of America?

WTH

Fulton County Courtroom Implosion

February 15 may prove to be a crucial, potentially fatal, turning point in the Georgia racketeering case against Donald Trump and multiple indicted co-conspirators. Allegations of potential conflicts of interest stemming from a romantic relationship between Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and an outside attorney she hired to lead the case were made by counsel for one of the defendants. As those allegations have been investigated, conflicts regarding dates of the relationship beginning and ending and the exact nature of the relationship have been identified which were addressed in the courtroom on February 15, 2024. Surprising everyone, Fani Willis chose to take the stand to answer questions directly. Further surprising everyone, Willis was -- frankly -- a DISASTER on the stand.

MSNBC's Ari Melber had defense attorney Manny Arora along with other talking heads on his 2/15 show to provide analysis from the defense perspective on this turn of events. Arora outlined these points:

• FEDERAL prosecutors DECLINED to file charges for these elector falsification schemes in Georgia
• STATE prosecutors OPTED to file charges for these actions
• that STATE prosecution has taken YEARS of work to prepare
• the lawyer who WROTE the Georgia State racketeering law being used in the case is a member of the Fulton County DA staff and could have led this effort
• yet the DA brought in an OUTSIDER to lead the case with zero racketeering case experience
• who is likely to have earned close to $1,000,000 to date in hourly fees
• who turns out to have a romantic relationship with the DA
• and has taken personal trips with the DA
• where the DA paid him for his expenses IN CASH?

With that set of surface-level facts, the underlying facts about actual "intent" of the parties are meaningless. The above chain of superficial facts are enough to take a juror's mind off the core issues in the case and generate doubt about the motivations of prosecutors that needlessly raises the barrier for conviction.

Much of today's testimony fixated on CASH. Apparently, Fani Willis has a personal practice of keeping large sums of cash at home as a 6-month rainy day fund for career and personal upheaval. As her career has ebbed and flowed, she stated that in-home cash stash has ranged from $500 to $15,000. I can see someone lower on the professional ladder growing up with this idea instilled in them which they maintain as an adult. It is much harder to take this at face value for someone savvy enough to become a lawyer, win elected office as District Attorney in a top-50 metro in the United States and pursue one of the most complicated, politically explosive racketeering cases in US history.

So far, just on these SUPERFICIAL facts, this is not a position into which a crucial case like this should ever be put. Fani Willis' testimony and demeanor on the stand today raise serious questions about the viability of her taking this case to trial. She's spent years on this case to date. She KNOWS the defendants and their willingness to adopt ANY and ALL tactics to escape justice. Surely someone able to take this effort this far would have the ability to maintain a wall between the personal and professional, ANTICIPATE such personal attacks and provide a more focused, effective response under oath. NOTHING in Willis' testimony today was focused or effective.

Defense attorney expert Arora at one point said words to this effect: "When the DA prosecuting the case sounds like a typical MAGA advocate - and believe me, I am NOT - or Trump himself on the stand, it does not help their case. When the subject is dealing in CASH, it creates the appearance of possible impropriety which will slow down this case that everyone wants to be completed."

At best, today's events in a Fulton County courtroom amount to an unforced error of massive proportion on a critical criminal case for the entire country. At worst, they contribute significantly to the overal circus atmosphere surrounding anything involving Trump and MAGA extremists which simply feeds into their nihilistic narrative of government and judicial incompetence and "deep state" corruption, making every problem in this area of civic paranoia worse.

WTH

Presidential Angst

Angst over the choice of Presidential candidates seemed to be the agreed-upon theme across all news and entertainment media for February 12, 2024. Seth Myers and Jon Stewart delivered nearly identical rants in the opening segments of their fake-news shows, their shared point being that it is not up to the supporters of EITHER candidate to explicitly look away and NOT say anything about concerns about the mental fitness of the person wanting to retain or regain one of the most mentally challenging jobs on the planet. It's up to the CANDIDATES to quell those concerns to the voters' satisfaction. And it should be up to the PARTIES to ensure more new blood circulates to the top of the system rather than just "defaulting" to the next party elder who hasn't already won the top job as though it's their "turn."

The aspect of all of this that concerns me the most at this point is that this albeit well-deserved focus on two elderly men reflects a larger problem with our political systems and we the voters right now. Voters should ABSOLUTELY pay attention to the mental (and moral) fitness of any candidate for President. Voters should ABSOLUTELY consider the possibility that choosing candidate A over candidate B in ANY election might be more likely to require the country to go through a succession due to illness, etc. But we have a Vice President, a Speaker of the House, President Pro Tempore of the Senate, etc. and clearly defined rules for succession for a reason. NOBODY knows when they're going to go and the rest of the system HAS to continue functioning if one player at the top exits the show without triggering a coup or week-long delay in determining who gets the launch codes and Air Force One.

More importantly, if voters are making their choices by only paying attention to a single player at the top, they have failed to understand the intended operation of our system of government and failed to comprehend their responsibility to look at the entire chess board and make decisions about EVERYONE playing a role in government, from President down to local city council. ONE CANDIDATE didn't break everything that's currently wrong in our economy and society and government and ONE CANDIDATE won't be able to fix it all in one four year term. America has been creating problems with bad financial regulation, lax enforcement of anti-trust, wealth inequality, bad urban planning leading to sprawl, inefficient transportation networks and eco-hostile consumerism for seventy years.

Stop fixating on the king (or queen). Play the entire board. Flawed as it is, the current system has worked for 235 years since we upgraded to USA Release 2.0 in 1789. It STOPPED working as well when marketing techniques used to sell candy bars and Chevrolets invaded politics and succeeded at converting political choices into brand loyalty exercises. Neither major brand is working terribly effectively at the moment so stop focusing on them and go back to objective facts. Parties and brands do not fix problems. Individual people fix problems (or worsen them). Every candidate for every role at every layer requires scrutiny.

WTH

This Week in Scientific Fraud at Harvard

Pete Judo on YouTube posted a 15 minute video summarizing yet another case of blatant scientific fraud uncovered at Harvard. No, not the one from January 2024 involving workers at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute that resulted in 31 scientific papers being retracted from numerous publications. That was so two weeks ago.

https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj.q249

Harvard University’s Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston is to retract six research articles and ask for corrections of 31 more, many of them by its senior leaders, after a blogger raised concerns about image manipulation.

Sholto David, 32, a molecular biologist based in Pontypridd, Wales, highlighted apparently duplicated images from 30 articles in a 2 January guest post on the website For Better Science.1 The articles’ lead authors were four prominent Dana-Farber scientists, including the institute’s chief executive, Laurie Glimcher, and its chief operating officer, William Hahn.

This case involves a different "scientist", though -- curiously -- the same modus operandi... Submitting scientific papers that support their conclusions not with DOCTORED images, but with images having NOTHING TO DO AT ALL WITH THE RESEARCH BEING DESCRIBED. In essence, this latest case found Khalid Shah used photos lifted from other scientific papers and even stock photos of clumps of cells from commercial web sites and used them to "explain" the biological process he and his team claimed to have discovered.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/2/1/harvard-neuroscientist-research-misconduct/

Again, these papers involved research into cancer treatments and again, these papers were supposedly peer reviewed. In fact, the only person that seemed to subject them to serious review was Elisabeth Blik, who publishes a blog called Science Integrity Digest at

vhttps://scienceintegritydigest.com/about/

Between 2014 and 2024, Blik has identified over 4,000 potential cases of image-related research fraud. Blik uncovered BOTH of these most recent Harvard frauds. You'd think with a multi-billion dollar endowment, Harvard could create an organization internally to perform the same electronic forensic tests on the research being published by its academics to stop these forgeries from being published and eliminate these corrupt academics from its staff. Why wouldn't an institution like Harvard pursue this? Could it be they believe their financial interests are better served allowing this type of fraud to continue and taking the occassional PR black eye when caught? Does Harvard feel its finances are improved by fostering the illustion of all of this cutting edge "miracle science" being cooked up in its laboratories and spun off into tech startups linked to the university?

Here's the summary of this current case:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wT-Vgtm2KLM

As mentioned previously, it is absolutely clear that for the majority of academic institutions, money is the mission.

WTH

The US Supreme Court and Insurrection

Oral arguments were held at the United States Supreme Court on February 8, 2024 in the case involving the Colorado State Supreme Court decision allowing for the removal of Donald Trump from the state's primary ballot. The arguments lasted for two hours and nineteen minutes but were over before they began. It is guaranteed the USSC will overturn the Colorado Supreme Court decision and permit Trump to appear on the state's ballot. The only question is whether it might be a 9-0 decision.

Core Argument of Trump

The core argument made by Trump's counsel is that the literal language of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment prevents an insurrectionist from HOLDING office. Strictly speaking, it doesn't prevent an actor from RUNNING for office. Because Section 3 includes language that allows the disqualification to be REMOVED by a two-thirds vote of Congress, it cannot be left to a state to determine a candidate will BE ineligible for office at the time they TAKE office if it is possible that Congress could remove their disqualification. Any attempt by a state to block ballot access to such a candidate PRIOR to that disqualification would be equivalent to altering the "term limits" on office, which would be unconstitutional. (Here, counsel for Trump consistently used the language "term limits" to refer to qualifications and disqualifications, not "term limits" in the sense of barring additional terms after X terms served.)

More importantly, the Trump argument is that the Griffin decision from 1869 was correctly decided and that CONGRESS must enact laws to enforce the Section 3 disqualification in order to ensure consistency. That implies that ultimately disqualification from office or a ballot must be a Congressional function, not a state function.

Core Argument of Colorado

The core argument presented by counsel for Colorado was that Section 3 was self-executing like all other aspects of the Fourteenth Amendment, that administration of Presidential elections was a function of STATE government and that states held authority to enforce qualifications and disqualifications per state law and due process. The states have the right and responsibility to ensure their electoral votes are not wasted on candidates who are UNQUALIFIED due to being under-age, foreign born or DISQUALIFIED due to insurrection under Section 3.

Key Concerns of the USSC

Questions from all of the justices to counsel for the State of Colorado and Donald Trump all reinforced common themes, all of which had nothing to do with the concern of an insurrectionist gaining entry on a ballot and potentially regaining national office and everything do do with concerns about inconsistencies between states and equity in enforcement of such disqualifications from office.

The court's collective inclination in the case was evident immediately but became certain at eighty one minutes into the process when Chief Justice Roberts asked this question:

The whole point of the Fourteenth Amendment was to ensure states would not restrict rights under equal protection? Wouldn't the Fourteenth Amendment be the LAST place you would expect to see a power delegated TO the states regarding elections?

The counsel for Colorado attempted to answer by stating that the control of federal elections and explicitly processes for selecting electors who vote for President are state functions and that the Fourteenth ALLOWED Congress to act in this space in this area but still left the power with the states.

At that point, Brett Kavanaugh opined that this ambiguity tells us that Congress has the predominate role in this process.

BALLGAME OVER.

That conclusion that enforcement of Section 3 will now be viewed purely as a Congressional power has another key impact on the pending criminal cases facing Trump. One question posed in the oral arguments pointed out that Congress enacted laws after the Griffin case explicitly creating a statute criminalizing insurrection. As the question went,

• so there IS a disqualification in Section 3 for insurrection
• there IS a US Code criminal statute regarding insurrection
• if someone is found guilty of that federal crime, the Section 3 language should be self-executing
• if Congress wants to remove the disqualification for a candidate, they can do so with a two-thirds vote

YET... Trump has not been indicted for insurrection. Why? He has been indicted on other charges, but not "insurrection" exactly. The very fact that this question was posed in the Supreme Court seems to explicitly state that even a conviction on the criminal charges related to January 6 as currently structured would NOT meet the Supreme Court's new litmus test on whether the Section 3 exclusion could be enforced against a convicted Trump. If Trump manages to win the 2024 election, the country will be engulfed in another Constitutional crises where a actor out on appeal can resume the Presidency, dismiss his own criminal charges and remain in power and thumb his nose at any state criminal conviction that might occur in Georgia.

In short, the current criminal prosecutions in flight only hold value if Trump LOSES the election. If he WINS re-election, NOTHING currently in process will legally keep him from regaining power.

One final key legal concern raised by multiple justices regardless of presumed conservative or liberal leaning involved the impact of collateral estoppal, meaning if one state like Colorado held that a candidate was ineligible to appear on the ballot based on this due process with these facts and this interpretation of state law, would other states voluntarily (or feel compelled to) also remove that candidate from their ballot, bowing to the same interpretation of facts? Would that not result in one state attempting to influence an entire national election? Wouldn't that be disenfranchisement of voters?

To a person, all nine justices appeared absolutely terrified by this prospect of potential chaos. Of course, none of them considered that multiple Republican State Attorneys General attempted to do THE EXACT SAME THING after the 2020 election by filing motions to reject OTHER STATES' electoral slates for bogus claims of election fraud they knew to be false. Unfortunately, the counsel for Colorado -- in one of MANY weak points in their arguments -- failed to make that point. Counsel for Colorado also failed to mention that we have a word for this potential variability -- FEDERALISM -- and we have tolerated this potential for variability stemming from federalism since Day One under the current constitution when the process of the Electoral College was created. NOW suddenly, it's a concern?

Continuing on this thread of questioning, multiple justices asked questions expressing concern that affirming the Colorado decision might encourage groups in other states to take retribution by filing motions to block OTHER candidates, creating an explosion of heated, time-sensitive litigation, generating even more chaos. Counsel for Colorado replied to these concerns by stating there HASN'T been a flood of such efforts required partly because a) there was a blanket amnesty granted by Congress in 1876 to all participants in the Confederacy (while NOT removing the ban on future insurgents) and b) we haven't had an actor until Donald Trump actively engage in leading an insurrection against the government. This is NOT and SHOULD NOT be a routine case in American history going forward.

The reply from Brett Kavanaugh? We haven't had this issue come up because no state has attempted to block a candidate for national office from its ballot until Colorado in 2024.

How hostile to the enforcement of Section 3 was this court?

Neil Gorsuch posed a hypothetical question to the Colorado counsel... Suppose an insurrectionist became President. Would someone serving under them in the military or in office somewhere have the right to refuse an order from that President? The counsel, clearly not comfortable in this area of law hemmed and hawed, stating given that the actor was now HOLDING office and that other mechanisms had not functioned to keep them out of office, it WOULD likely require impeachment to remove them and until that happened, other subordinates in the government or military would not be able to ignore commands or directions until removal. Gorsuch then said, but if Section 3 is self-executing, can't these parties just refuse the order? If not, then how are you arguing the law is self-executing?

This is a Supreme Court Justice asking this hypothetical. He essentially asked this question: If you the plaintiff find that multiple mechanisms that SHOULD have stopped someone from gaining power failed and allowed the actor to gain power, now that they're IN power, can you describe to me how they should be removed from power? If you thought your mechanism was self-executing but multiple parties failed to do their duty under the law, if you now cannot describe how they should be removed from power, then how can your law be self-executing? Why should it be treated as such?

---

It must be stated very clearly.

The United States Supreme Court explicitly rejected clear language in the Constitution delegating control of elections to states in favor of an interpretation of a different part of the Constitution pulling power TO Congress and the courts that includes language this same USSC has recently GUTTED by abandoning key aspects of voting rights enforcement.

The United States Supreme Court explicitly rationalized a forthcoming decision gutting state control of ballot eligibility based upon on bogus concerns about voter disenfranchisement resulting from state-level abuse of election law. Huh? The actor in this case conspired with Republican State Attorneys General across SEVENTEEN STATES to attempt to REJECT the votes of MILLIONS of voters in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Georgia in order to illegally retain power. The very first rationale cited in the summary of that bogus amicus brief held up the SANCTITY of state responsibility for election integrity:

First, the States have a strong interest in safeguarding the separation of powers among state actors in the regulation of Presidential elections.

The court's confusion might be forgiven. On one hand, they correctly rejected that case in Texas vs Pennsylvania stating Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.. Yet here, they have clearly indicated they will rule against Colorado for fear affirming Colorado's decision would interfere with voter rights in other states. When you are opportunistically picking and choosing your principals, it's hard to maintain the appearance of consistency.

The immediate path forward is clear. Trump will be allowed on the Colorado ballot in an opinion that will probably be released in a matter of days. No other state will bother attempting to enforce its election laws by keeping Trump off future ballots either.

The longer path forward is completely opaque and appalling from a legal and civic standpoint. The only safe prediction is that Anderson vs Griswold will vault into the pantheon of famous, tragically flawed United States Supreme Court decisions, right up there with Dredd Scott vs Heller, Plessey vs. Ferguson, Citizens United vs FEC, Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health in long term damage to the country. Of course, only for the five percent of the population that still have any concern at all with history - past or future.

WTH

Automotive Economics

A pair of YouTube videos provides interesting perspectives on the challenges for makers, dealers and consumers in the automotive sector. The videos address price trends for used EVs and transparency for repair costs. The points they make about the costs for purchasing and repairing vehicles make it easier to understand why predicting trends in demand going forward will be difficult.

The Retail Sector

The first video posted by the YouTube channel savagegeese was a brief, ten-minute summary of the current 2024 market for used electric vehicles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLuiU7XYuUg

Recent news about battery technology and manufacturing capacity has led not only to predictions of rapid declines in battery PRICES (roughly 11% yearly through 2030) but significant INCREASES in battery RANGE (roughly 33% to 100% in the next 2-5 years) as well. When you have the two key parameters driving the economics of an EV both moving in the "good" direction at those rates, traditional rules of thumb developed over decades of price behavior on traditional vehicles no longer apply. New car buyers can't just expect the normal new-car buyer depreciation tax of losing a couple of thousand dollars in value just by taking title. As Mark ("savagegeese") points out, many new EV models that sold for $60,000 to $90,000 dollars are dropping $10,000 to $20,000 in value in a year on cars with only 2000 to 5000 miles.

The key insight in the savagegeese video is that buyers need to be reminded that these tremendous drops in prices are not solely some new dynamic specific to EVs that (as some sarcastically state) makes them as stable an investment as a cell phone. Yes, much of their technology can be updated or superseded like a next generation iPhone or Galaxy S59. However, much of this dynamic is due to market distortions rather than technology distortions. First, supply chain meltdowns between 2000 and 2022 led to unusually large imbalances between supply and demand, spiking prices. Second, initial travel lockdowns triggered most rental car companies to instantly sell off their fleets rather than paying interest on them as they sat idle. But once travel opened up, demand for fleet vehicles spiked while supply chain woes had not been solved. In particular, Hertz chose that time to gamble that buying heavily into electric vehicles would help it jump-start its adoption of EVs and provide a marketing edge with customers.

Uhhhhh, no. As Miss Rafferty recounted in the Alien Abduction skits on SNL, "Cookie crumbled a little different for me here..."

Many rental customers were not thrilled with the idea of going through the new EV driver learning curve in an unfamiliar vehicle while having to travel on business. Hertz itself began encountering issues with repair / collision work taking cars out of circulation far longer than expected / desired. If you think about it, that makes PERFECT sense. Drivers have never been known for taking it easy on rental cars. The incident rate of minor fender benders, door dents, curb scrapes and unexpected -- ahem -- "off-roading" has to be significantly higher for rentals than owned cars, generating a higher rate of repair work. In early January 2024, Hertz announced it would sell off ALL of its electric vehicles, dumping THOUSANDS of Tesla model 3s on the used market, driving down used prices even more.

The core point from the savagegeese video -- though it wasn't quite stated in exactly these words -- is that attempting to analyze the EV automotive market (and the larger traditional automotive market) can be confusing if the analyst keeps trying to find old patterns in current data without remembering the once-in-a-lifetime distortion that took place for three years worldwide. It's not the case that new cars are suddenly depreciating at rates never seen before solely for new, technology-driven reasons. Used car prices are dropping like stones because other economic factors lined up for three years to trigger a significant number of buyers into vastly overpaying for new vehicles of all types in the first place. If your car "depreciates" by $20,000 from an $70,000 price tag in under a year with only 3000 miles of use, it was never worth $70,000 in the first place. You simply overpaid. Period. Until the average consumer breaks their addiction to new-car smell, they will continue to throw money away on "new car depreciation" that most cannot afford.

Another point NOT mentioned in the savagegeese video that consumers should contemplate is the impact (or lack thereof...) of plummeting used car prices on personal property taxes. It's doubtful that most county governments index their personal property tax evaluations for vehicles based on a database feed updated monthly from Kelly Blue Book. It's more likely most tax assessor offices have a formula that reflects the traditional decline in resale value of cars experienced over decades that writes down the value in a relatively straight line between year 0 and year 12. This overvalues the car in the first couple of years, probably becomes roughly accurate for years 3-12 then overvalues cars older than 12 years which continue generating some minimum tax bill even thought the car might be near worthless on the used market.

In a market where new cars could be plummeting in value by twenty to thirty percent in the the first two years, owners will likely be paying far higher personal property taxes on those vehicles than justified by the actual market value. The only way to avoid that is to avoid buying new and let someone else take that first depreciation hit. There's no practical way to argue assessments on vehicles with your local county assessor.

The Repair Sector

The second eye-opening video appeared on the FantomWorks channel a year ago and addressed the reality of published versus actual labor rates and how many repair shops operate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11aTPFFTIQc

The owner who created the video doesn't run a traditional repair shop but instead focuses on restoration work. In theory, his target customer base would already be more accustomed to higher cost estimates since a) the vehicles involved are older with more difficult parts logistics to solve, b) the work itself is always more burdensome on a rusted out vehicle with rusty, salvaged parts, and c) the work is almost by definition "elective work" rather than "I need this fixed on my 17-year old beater so I can get to work."

Not the case.

The owner made this video because he had a continual stream of potential restoration customers coming to him asking for a quote and setting the stage by mentioning labor rates and overall cost estimates from competitors that were completely untied to reality. Labor rates of $58/hour. Total restoration costs of $40,000 to $60,000. The core point of his video was that such quotes reflect businesses that are relying on a bait and switch to get the classic vehicle underway and taken apart with that first $40,000 then coming back to the customer with work already underway and divulging the next $30,000 or $50,000 in costs when the customer is unlikely to end the work with the car in pieces and take it somewhere else or stop entirely.

What was interesting about the video is the owner chatted up other shop owners in his community to subliminally determine how they were communicating costs to customers to set such misleading expectations. His findings indicate that even moderately informed customers face challenges shopping for repair work. All of the numbers used by shops appear to reference well-understood concepts but are adjusted in ways not explained to customers.

EXAMPLE: Labor Rates - He found customers coming in with quotes for $58/hour labor rates. He said he can barely find someone with a pulse for that amount, much less someone skilled at restoration work. He then realized shops were actually charging an additional "material rate" of about $48 dollars to cover the hourly consumption of shop rags, solvents, cleaning supplies, disposal costs, etc. that any mechanic would need to do their work. To be fair, separating these two amounts DOES make senses since they reflect different cost factors. However, only quoting the "labor rate" when talking to customers makes it appear as though shop rates are far more inexpensive than they really are. For some customers, that may be enough of a lure to rope them into a much higher bill AFTER the work is started.

EXAMPLE: Labor Hour Estimates -- Most consumers are probably aware that repair shops do not literally create an estimate of physical work hours specific to each car that rolls in based on its unique owner history, condition and symptoms. Instead, an attempt to diagnose the issue is made to identify the components that might have to be touched, then a central reference manual ("the book") is consulted to match each procedure to a uniform estimate. Conceptually, the labor hour figures in this bible are accurate on average but some cars will take LESS time and others will take MORE time. Some consumers may also realize that mechanics are only paid for that "book" number of hours, regardless of how many actual hours it takes the mechanic to do the work. The shop doesn't take the risk of a difficult car, the MECHANIC takes the risk. But in charging the customer, many shops ROUND UP those individual "hours" estimates for each job. A job rated at 30 minutes gets rounded up to 60. A job rated at 45 minutes gets rounded up to 60. A job consisting of 5 different tasks (30 + 45 + 60 + 90 + 90 = 315 minutes) or 5 hours 15 minutes of physical labor becomes (60 + 60 + 60 + 120 + 120 = 420) minutes or 7 hours of billable labor, for both labor and materials time. Unless the consumer brings their laptop to the sit-down with the order writer in the repair shop to plug these numbers into a spreadsheet and reverse engineer the final total cost, they are likely to be lured in by an artificially low "labor rate" and "reasonable" interval estimates for individual tasks only to still overpay when the hidden cost factors are inflated and applied to the estimate.

---

Another point raised elsewhere that's worth considering DOES involve the nature of the technologies being added to vehicles. Costs for repair and collision work IS going up for newer cars in large part because more expensive components are being included as part of more complicated, luxury interiors. Controllers for ambient lighting, controllers for massaging seats, controllers for voice recognition and simulated engine noises, controllers for collision avoidance systems, etc. However, that "average" statistic doesn't necessarily reflect what people might first conclude.

One reason why average collision repair bills are going up is precisely BECAUSE these new collision avoidance systems actually WORK, eliminating many accidents entirely, especially those at low speed. However, a car driving 70mph that decides to switch lanes is still likely going to collide with another car triggering a horrible accident and THAT accident is likely to require virtually all of the expensive components to be replaced and recalibrated into the larger system. Essentially, the "average" is going up but the number of accidents involved with relatively small costs is going down at the same time.

In short, this evolving automotive market will likely continue posing challenges for people attempting to predict demand and sales and for consumers attempting to pick the optimal vehicle for their needs for some time. Makers, dealers and financial analysts will likely require a few more years to reach a new equilibrium based on altered interpretations of existing industry performance statistics. Consumers will require significant re-education to catch up with all the ways makers, dealers and repair shops may be exploiting confusion to extract more revenue from them. Until consumemrs catch up, they are likely to find themselves consistently overpaying for offerings that are less cutting edge and more simply an e-Edsel or e-Delorean.

WTH

Trump Versus Taylor - You're Kidding, Right?

Apparently, a meeting was held recently in the Republican Hall of Mirrors and the Committee for Demographic Destruction and Batshit Memes decided that now, early 2024, was the time to unleash a new set of conspiracy theories on the world and spook would-be voters away from "them." You know... Liberals.

I'm not sure I can exactly cite it from memory and I don't want to occupy any more brain cells on this type of rhetoric than needed to write this piece but the story goes something like this... A pop-star who sold out 146 stadium shows and grossed over $1 billion dollars purposely chose to date a professional athlete playing in a league that has rigged its season to ensure that athlete's team makes it to the Super Bowl so the celebrity power couple can magnify their media profile precisely as the pop star endorses Joe Biden for re-election and brings about the zombie liberal apocalypse and... ...worst of all... ...attracts more media attention away from Donald Trump. There may be some sort of additional hidden plot involving the CIA or NSA or intelligence department within the Department of Defense.

Attempting to leverage pop culture within the political sphere virtually NEVER goes well for politicians, for multiple reasons. First, politicians are virtually one hundred percent non-hip in any area of culture, be it music, movies, television or social media. Any attempt to fake hipness only magnifies the un-hipness of the candidate and worsens the "hip gap" they wanted to narrow. Second, any attempt by politicians to glom onto any sense of unity or identity provided by an artist or their work actually triggers RESENTMENT from fans of that artist or work because the politician is intruding on sacred territory inside that fan's head. The territory occupied by good memories linked with super glue to that artist or song. And now some schlub politician is trying to insert themselves into that space by playing the song at campaign rallies that become memes on the internet.

How many Fleetwood Mac fans have had fond memories of 1977, Trans Ams, CB radios and earth shoes linked to "Don't Stop" crowded out by images of fat, middle-aged Democrats dancing to the song at Clinton campaign rallies and Democratic conventions? How many Springsteen fans have had memories of epic, sweaty three hour live shows of The Boss singing "Born in the USA" obliterated by scenes of clueless Republicans pumping their fist in the air at Reagan campaign rallies where Republican operatives played the song as a jingoistic pro-America anthem because they were too clueless to understand the lyrics? Fans DO NOT like having their favorite cultural memories tainted by seeing them dragged into politics. By either side.

In the case of Donald Trump versus Taylor Swift, there are two equally likely explanations for why Republicans would choose this pre-emptive cultural strike. The first likely explanation is that the Republican Party truly is this dumb, strategically speaking. The economic and political justification for this conclusion will be covered shortly. The second likely explanation is due to the unique psychopathy of Donald Trump and his black-hole sized demand for all attention in all spheres of public thought. Regardless of the exact mix of drivers behind this new "war," its very existence reflects a behavior exhibited by ALL authoritarian regimes -- an instinctive, visceral fear of pop culture as a threat to power.

It is this pattern of authoritarian paranoia about pop culture that makes this new Trump Versus Taylor war worthy of serious analysis. The choice by Republicans to launch this particular cultural war further highlights how poorly Republicans are reading the political landscape and why, if they cannot read relatively simple dynamics like this, they certainly cannot be expected to handle the complexities of dealing with Russia, China, North Korea and Iran.

The first step in understanding the stupidity of this new Republican tactic involves analyzing a crucial aspect of the current American political climate.

The Key Dynamic in American Politics

THE biggest force to affect the outcome of the 2024 election is not the status of abortion rights, immigration policy, the risks of widening wars in Ukraine and the mid east, nor the economy. The biggest force in the 2024 election will be APATHY on the part of eighteen to thirty year old voters. Either the presence of apathy or its absence.

Voters in that age group have never seen a functional American government. They have never seen two political parties define problems in terms of existing laws, economics, science and basic math or propose solutions that act directly on the problems they encounter every day. This 18-30 generation of voters lived their entire childhood in fear of being massacred in their own school room by psychopaths armed with automatic weapons and saw their parents do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT IT.

This generation of 18-30 year old voters for the most part sees ZERO DISTINCTION between Democrats and Republicans. They don't care about positions the parties claim to profess, they care about what they have actually ACCOMPLISHED and, from their perspective, virtually nothing has been accomplished regarding the issues they care about.

If one presumes that kids follow their parents' political affiliation -- purely from indoctrination or laziness rather than a rational, independent analysis and decision -- then Republicans account for the smallest bloc of this generation. The current national split of voters across affiliations is 41% independent, 31% Democrat and 25% Republican. If a whopping 41% of this bloc of voters is independent but might be triggered into voting by a particularly stupid attack on something they care DEEPLY about, that could easily swing the election not only from Trump to Biden but from Republicans in general across every swing district in the country.

It's not that Taylor Swift is that important in national politics. She has zero impact on ANY critical issue facing the country. But it is precisely because of that dynamic that this Republican tactic is so potentially disastrous for Republicans. The 18-30 generation may be apathetic but they're not stupid. Right now, they can see a political party SCREAMING that unchecked immigration will be the end of America. But they also see right now THAT SAME PARTY publicly stating it will not support a bill to REFORM immigration because they want the issue in an election more than they want the solution at work in the country. The 18-30 bloc looks at those two facts and sees more of the same paralysis and chaos that made them sitting ducks for automatic weapons in school. They will reach the correct conclusion. That party is disconnected from reality.

And now THAT SAME PARTY is pushing a conspiracy theory about the single most successful artist of their generation, because she might be for the other guy? At a minimum, those apathetic 18-30 voters don't have to know a thing about Democratic proposals to be turned off from voting Republican. If Democrats properly craft a message explaining how the party has attempted to balance a variety of efforts across issues important to 18-30s, the Republicans will not only LOSE votes from this bloc but Democrats can GAIN votes, expanding a potential margin of victory out of the single biggest bloc up for grabs. What might some of those issues be?

• student debt write-downs in cases of diploma mill frauds, etc.
• broadband subsidies for the poor to ensure access for kids
• broadband buildouts in rural America, to eliminate the technology gulf that worsens rural economies
• continued protection of guaranteed minimum healthcare coverage
• continued defense of abortion rights where not thwarted by Republican super-majorities
• continued defense of contraception rights
• continued defense of LGBTQ rights
• billions in funding to revamp the electric grid to support a greener future

An Economic He Versus She

Okay, so Republicans raised the topic. Donald Trump cannot stand to surrender one inch of news copy to anyone else and seems to be insisting on a comparison between himself and Taylor Swift. Ummmm, Donald? The news is not good... It's interesting to compare the lifetime economic impact of Trump and Swift.

In one corner, we have a real estate developer who was estimated to have a net worth of $1 million as an eight year old and $100 million as of 1978 and could have had a net worth of roughly $6 billion dollars had he simply invested the $100 million in an index fund and played golf for the next forty years. Instead, his net worth is estimated to be only about $2.2 billion but no one really knows the true figure. From a star power perspective, Trump earned roughly $427 million in royalties during his 2004-2015 stint on The Apprentice. That's impressive. $427 million over eleven years of work. Hold that thought. We also know Trump has generated significant economic activity in the legal sector throughout his entire career, triggering literally thousands of lawsuits, resulting in at least $50 million in legal bills in 2023 alone. While the extent of WORK in the legal realm generated by Trump over his career is vast, it is impossible to predict the actual economic impact of that work because it is impossible to know how much of that legal work Trump actually paid for. Trump has a lifelong reputation for stiffing his own lawyers.

In the opposite corner, we have Taylor Swift, a thirty five year old songwriter, musician, recording artist and live performer who has written, recorded and released ten albums over eighteen years that have sold over two hundred million copies. Swift is currently nearing the end of a two year world tour that has already grossed $1.1 billion dollars. It's estimated Swift nets an astonishing 85% of the ticket and merchandise revenue at each show. Ponder those numbers. She's netting 85% of $1.1 billion dollars or $935 million only 10 months into a 19 month tour. Makes $427 million over eleven years for the Apprentice not so impressive. Her personal net worth is also approximately $1.1 billion dollars, one hundred percent of which was earned from precisely three things -- a guitar, a piano and her brain. Swift has used her economic clout within the music industry to trigger significant changes in streaming media licensing schemes that have proven to be grossly unfair to artists. When she left her original music label in 2018, her new label contract included terms (and teeth) to incent her new label UMG to avoid auctioning off its share in Spotify in ways that might further facility exploitation of content for streaming services at the expense of artists. Her contract stipulated that if UMG sold any portion of its shares in Spotify, all proceeds had to be distributed equally to all UMG artists. At that time, UMG held 3.5% of Spotify's shares and they were worth nearly $1 billion dollars. More recently, Swift's music along with other major artists has been removed from Tik Tok after UMG and Tik Tok could not come to new terms to renew a licensing contract. UMG and its artists, including Swift, are concerned about the long term protection of intellectual property and Tik Tok's perceived failure to adopt policies aimed at protecting those rights.

Authoritarians and Pop Culture

What IS it about authoritarians that makes them so fearful and resentful about pop culture and pop figures? It sounds like a ridiculous, pseudo-psychology topic but it's worth serious analysis. The types of music, movies, literature and art that "click" in popular culture and become big has always been impossible to predict. But new genres and new starts in those genres inevitably appear - and are inevitably scoffed at by prior generations, who of course adore the genres and stars of THEIR generation and many of the generations before them whose status evolved into "classic." But present day culture is nearly universally FEARED by leaders of authoritarian regimes. The Soviet Union tried to convince its citizens that Western culture was decadent and completely unnecessary for a modern, efficient communist utopia. But WHY? Why the FEAR?

By definition, authoritarian regimes have five dynamics at work in parallel at all times:

• efforts to control all economic activity to deliver a minimum set of promises to the masses while funneling a disproportionate share of wealth to the leader and the cronies required to allow him to remain in power
• widespread, continuing failures to deliver on most economic promises
• continual efforts to disguise those failures from the public for as long as possible
• attempts to identify and squelch any individual expression that might conflict with the official party line
• a lack of popular support from the public - if the public supported them, the authoritarianism wouldn't be needed

Those dynamics are incompatible with allowing a vibrant culture to operate and produce the next big trend and the next big star. Authoritarian regimes fear the operation of pop culture precisely because its unpredictability conflicts with their need for predictability and control. The existence of a vibrant pop culture demonstrates to the public that there are other sources for ideas and people to communicate them more effectively than leadership. Leadership cannot trust such a population to follow the party line but they cannot predict who the next successful pop culture icon will be so they would prefer to squelch culture in its entirety unless they can control it.

The Republican Party is already treading water with a 25% share of the electorate and barely holding onto power via gerrymandering and other non-democratic distortions throughout the country. They are adopting an authoritarian playbook because such tactics are REQUIRED to retain power involuntarily when your actual policies lack popular support. It should be ZERO surprise to find the Republican Party suddenly freaking out about the prospect of a pop artist possibly weighing in against the party's candidates.

What Else Could Be Driving This? Oh Yea...

So really, Republicans... Is this really the battle you want to create out of thin air? Taylor Swift? Could it be that there is yet ANOTHER dynamic at work with this particular political tactic and target? On one side, we have a seventy eight year old supposed billionaire man, who just lost an $83 million dollar judgment in a case to a WOMAN attorney representing a WOMAN who accused him of rape in a department store. A man facing a $370 million dollar loss in another case brought by a WOMAN attorney general. A man facing criminal prosecution in a state case he may be unable to escape led by a WOMAN prosecuting attorney?

And suddenly, this man is striking out in public against a thirty five year old pop star? A WOMAN? A successful YOUNG woman? A successful, young BILLIONAIRE woman, who seems to call all of her shots in her career? It couldn't be that Trump and the entire misogynistic Republican Party are upset that yet another WOMAN could play a role in diminishing their power and collectively HUMILIATING them, could it? And doing so predominately because of attention she is uniquely suited to draw to longstanding Republican policies that become more toxic for women every day?

Nahhhhhhh. It has to be something else.

WTH