It is not clear what is more chilling: the menacing role played by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in Twitter’s censorship program or its mendacious response to the disclosure of that role. This week saw another FBI “nothing-to-see-here” statement to the release of files detailing how it actively sought to suppress the Hunter Biden story before the 2020 election, gave millions to Twitter, and targeted even satire or tiny posts that did not conform with its guidelines.
The releases document what some of us have long alleged: a system of censorship by surrogate or proxy. The FBI has largely shrugged and said that there is nothing concerning about over 80 agents working on the censoring of posters, including many American citizens.
In the latest statement, the FBI stated it did not command Twitter to take any specific action when flagging accounts to be censored:
“We are providing it so that they can take whatever action they deem appropriate under their terms of service to protect their platform and protect their customers, but we never direct or ask them to take action.”
The files shows a previously undisclosed back channel of contacts where the FBI nudged Twitter to censor posters and Twitter proceeded to do so. Many are like the Nov. 10th email saying “Hello Twitter contacts, FBI San Francisco is notifying you of the below accounts which may potentially constitute violations of Twitter’s Terms of Service for any action or inaction deemed appropriate within Twitter policy.”
Notably, when four such accounts were given such purely discretionary, not-threatening-in-the-slightest flags, Twitter suspended three of the four accounts were suspended, and called for a review the fourth account flagged by the FBI for “possible civic misinformation.”
It is all just friendly chit chat from the “Public Sector Engagement Squad” at FBI’s San Francisco office.
The files also reveal a message to the former Deputy General Counsel (and former FBI General Counsel) Jim Baker revealed that Twitter collected $3,415,323 from the FBI.
“Jim, FYI, in 2019 SCALE instituted a reimbursement program for our legal process response from the FBI. Prior to the start of the program, Twitter chose not to collect under this statutory right of reimbursement for the time spent processing requests from the FBI. I am happy to report we have collected $3,415,323 since October 2019! This money is used by LP for things like the TTR and other LE-related projects (LE training, tooling, etc.).”
The FBI spokesperson said,
“The correspondence between the FBI and Twitter show nothing more than examples of our traditional, longstanding and ongoing federal government and private sector engagements, which involve numerous companies over multiple sectors and industries. As evidenced in the correspondence, the FBI provides critical information to the private sector in an effort to allow them to protect themselves and their customers.”
“The men and women of the FBI work every day to protect the American public. It is unfortunate that conspiracy theorists and others are feeding the American public misinformation with the sole purpose of attempting to discredit the agency.”
What is striking about this statement is that the FBI is now adopting the language of pundits on the left that any objections to its role in censorship is a “conspiracy theory.” Rather than acknowledge the concerns and pledge to work with Congress to guarantee transparency, it is attacking free speech advocates who are raising the concern that Twitter had become an agent of the government in censorship. Notably, Twitter itself now believes that such an agency relationship existed.
The statement shows an agency that is still engaged in framing public opinion and echoing the narrative being advanced by the White House. There are some who would question whether “working every day to protect the American public” should include censoring the public to protect it against errant or misleading ideas. There was a time when that was not a “conspiracy theory.”
They (FBI) “never direct or ask them (Twitter) to take action”, but with the massive power they hold over a compliant citizenry, they do not have to. Merely involving itself with a person’s or entity’s mission is enough to have a hand in directing it. If the FBI does not want to be discredited it should always be cognizant of its power and steer clear altogether from actively engaging with the terms of service of any social media platform.
In looking for quotes about the power of the FBI, I found one from none other than J. Edgar Hoover himself: “Just the minute the FBI begins making recommendations on what should be done with its information, it becomes a Gestapo.” Given his admiration in 1938 for the efficiencies of the Nazi police state he knew what he was saying.
https://www.rcreader.com/news-releases/rise-american-gestapo-has-it-already-happened-here
Charles Boyer in Gaslight had nothing on the The Federal Bureau of Intimidation! “A letter? Twitter proof? You read something? Paula–you were staring at nothing!”
Lake v Hobbs trial taking a quick break.
The FBI was up to its eyeballs in a seditious conspiracy to tamper with the 2016 election.
They were neck-deep in a seditious conspiracy to use falsified information concocted by political opposition for the purpose of removing duly-elected President Trump from office AND influence the 2018 election, giving Trump’s political opposition the House majority and an opportunity to launch TWO impeachment hoaxes.
They were directly involved in tampering with the 2020 election by, among other conduct, suppressing incriminating information about Fake President / Real Racketeer Joetard’s illegal influence-peddling while in office.
The FBI was onsite taking action to ENCOURAGE events to get out of control on January 6, 2021, when people descended on the Capitol to protest the Fake Election of 2020.
And the FBI’s illegal conduct is only increasing.
The FBI could probably cut the US crime rate in half overnight just by arresting itself.
Ralph, there is another point. The FBI was sitting quietly on Hunter’s laptop while Schiff et al were impeaching Trump for allegedly pressuring Zelensky to investigate Biden for influence peddling. What would have happened to that process, and Biden’s campaign, if the NYP had been able to publish the story at that time, or if the contents had leaked?
That, too. I could have typed all day about FBI misconduct and the effects thereof, but the Lake v Hobbs trial got back underway.
And as I’ve posted several times before, I wish I could give you a “like,” but for some reason, this website requires me to log in just to hit the like button, and it rejects my log in information, while not rejecting the SAME information when I use it to post comments and replies.
The laptop contained what people could construe as exculpatory evidence.
The FBI committed a Brady violation in withholding the laptop.
The FBI is part of government. What government does best is it grows.
So the high priests at the FBI tell us what misinformation is. They’ll have to excuse me if I don’t show up for their communion. The wafer has gone sour and the wine is spoiled. I am not at all interested in their salvation. Sounds like more of a cult than a law enforcement agency. They say, we will continue to preach the truth that will bring you to your redemption. It’s the great congregation of the elite. They ask, has anyone seen the witches we are hunting for? Chilling indeed.
Reading this makes me think that most or all of the FBI upper management should be replaced.
Jeff,
Not a bad idea.
Then, make a monthly mandatory non-bias, non-political training, with internal reviews that if a agent is found bias or political in their investigations or actions, they are fired.
Make sure everything is well documented.
There once was a TV series called The Untouchables. It was about the FBI going after the Mob. The Mob considered itself untouchable. It’s obvious through reading the statement from FBI that today the FBI considers itself untouchable. Basically the FBI has admitted that it was involved in effecting an election and that it will continue to do so in the future. The FBI says we have the power to limit what you see and hear and we are going to use it. Welcome to the USSR boy. You don’t know how lucky you are boy.
Tits, weren’t the untouchables treasury agents?
“weren’t the untouchables treasury agents?”
Yes — as in they could not be bought (“touched”) by the Mafia.
Now we have Federal agents “touching” the media mob. I don’t think that Eliot Ness would approve.
Agreed.
Today was a great day for this blog. It is really nice to see the outrage. Professor Turley is starting to sound like a revolutionary. John Adams would be proud. My belief in the federal government has been sinking ever since the Pentagon papers and rarely has my opinion changed in a positive direction except when Reagan was President and, for a time, Trump.
The G-Man says; I got a deal for you Twitter. If you do as we command we will not only be eternally grateful that you are protecting the nation but we will sweeten the deal with three and a half million bucks. It was just an innocent nudge and a prod. They did their tricks and they got their kibble.
It just hit me like a ton of bricks: Anonymous is defending the FBI in this absurd affair because Anonymous IS THE FBI. Why else would any sentient being try to defend the FBI having 80 people “suggesting” that some comments be taken down or silenced? There is no possible way that anyone not involved with the intelligence community, and I use the word intelligence almost ironically, could defend this attack on our First Amendment.
It is sickening that the FBI would do this, it is sickening that the media and other so-called liberals either ignore or defend it and it is sickening that we have idiots (or agents) like Anonymous and Svelaz saying it is all fine.
So is Svelaz!
Btw, where is he/she/it/they/them today?
hullbobby – Coincidentally, I had the same idea. I always assumed that our resident trolls worked for the DNC or Media Matters. But perhaps they work for the intelligence agencies. Do we have an Elvis Chan among us?
HullBobby,
I recall a case where the NYPD was in the wrong, and the Wikipedia page about the incident kept getting changed about the facts to make it seem like the NYPD was in the right.
They traced the IP addy . . . guess where!
A NYPD precinct.
Anonymous is defending the FBI in this absurd affair because Anonymous IS THE FBI.
Absolutely! It’s what I’ve been commenting about of late. Each and every day, JT posts and like clockwork, we have those of us defending the rights of the People and we have those defending abuse of power by the state.
This raises questions about the validity of our elections, especially the 2020 and 2022 elections.
So, we’re to believe that F.B.I. was being Benevolent, maybe that’s my fault not reading the small print in their contract with America. Authorities acting in direct contradiction to the laws they pledged their oath to, is supposed to be acceptable? When will this affront to the Constitution and existing laws apex. Having Government agents place their ideological thumb on the scales, is paving the way to Perdition.
It could be they, the FBI and the rest of the alphabet agencies, are having trouble with prepositions; i.e. ‘contract with America’ has become ‘contract on America’. It would certainly explain a lot.
Could the FBI’s comment be any more political ? We’re doomed…
“Conspricacy theory” has become the a rhetorical device to squelch debate. For example, in January 2022, several Republican congressmen offered an amendment to the America Competes Act of 2022 that would have denied the use of past appropriations to the NIH to fund the infamous Wuhan Lab, for reasons that are too obvious to state. In June 19, 2022, in an internal report by Adrienne Hallett, NIH Associate Director for Legislative Policy and Analysis, she said: ““A lot of these [the amendments] have to do with policymakers reacting to many of the controversies, many of the conspiracy theories that swirled during the pandemic.” So, in the view of the NIH, any concern about the death of millions of people through runaway viruses is a “conspiracy theory”. https://dailycaller.com/2022/12/13/nih-wuhan-lab-leak-conspiracy-gain-function-money-videos/
Will Twitter now censor itself by suppressing its’ files as a “conspiracy theory”? And, will Twitter then divulge those files? Turtles all the way down. Happy Holidays!
When they’re really after you, its not paranoia.
Agree.
Also. When it’s Fact it’s Also Not a Conspiracy. Facts are presenting themselves.
Pretend for a moment that Twitter executives were non-political business professionals diligently leading their company. Then, after witnessing a politically-weaponized FBI attempt to destroy a presidential candidate, his subsequent presidency and all of those within his orbit, the FBI comes knocking on their companies door with critical information…in an effort to allow them to protect themselves and their customers. Are they going to say, “we appreciate your concerns, but we don’t need your help.” Hell no. Because the next time they wouldn’t knock and CNN would be there recording every minute of it.
“. . . the next time they wouldn’t knock . . .”
Or there would suddenly be a new IRS audit, or an SEC investigation, or an EEOC violation, or . . .
And please do not tell me that government does not use alphabet agencies to pressure companies to accept government “help.” I’ve seen how government strong arms private individuals and companies. As just one example: During the 2008 bailout fiasco, a major bank *refused* to accept TARP money. The Feds were not pleased. So its regulators threatened the bank with fresh audits — that were sure to find “something.” Which “something” would be released to the financial press.
The bank accepted the loan. To not do so would have meant financial ruin for the bank, its customers, and stockholders.
Olly, your point is exactly what Apologists evade when they claim that the FBI was merely “suggesting” suppression and offering “advice” on what should be published.
“During the 2008 bailout fiasco, a major bank *refused* to accept TARP money. The Feds were not pleased. So its regulators threatened the bank with fresh audits — that was sure to find “something.” Which “something” would be released to the financial press.”
Sam, you are correct. The bank was BB&T. Charles Allison was the CEO, and he was emphatic that the bank required no TARP money. I spoke to him, so I don’t remember if this is the way the press reported it. He said that the bank was secure whether AIG failed or not and that AIG would not fail. He provided a lot of reasons. When he refused to take TARP money, the banking regulators told him they were worried about the reserves he had on hand. When he showed his bank had sufficient reserves, they told him they controlled how much reserves were required. They could keep upping the amount until the bank could not function. He took the money and was the first bank to return it.
I think he said that the threat of AIG failure wasn’t significant. Goldman Sachs could have easily withstood the losses, but Congress managed TARP in a way that Goldman Sachs partners earned a lot in bonuses. He didn’t indicate any fraud, but one would think Paulson would equate Goldman Sachs’s well-being to the well-being of the nation.
The IG of Tarp wrote a book, Bailout, explaining how Congress and all those involved decided to use the money in ways not intended. What he revealed was shocking.
John Allison has since been the head of a libertarian think tank, and through charitable foundations promotes teaching children about capitalism.
Like the FBI, Paulson, the Secretary of the Treasury, “was merely “suggesting” what Allison should do at BB&T. Notably, Paulson was also Chairman of the Board at Goldman Sachs.
The CEO of AIG who had been pushed out prior to the 2008 crash, actually sued as a shareholder over the bailout claiming that AIG – that I beleive recieved about 1/3 of All TARP money was NEVER in the slightest danger of defaulting. or bankruptcy and never needed Tarp money.
Steve Forbes has argued powerfully that the ONLY thing needed to avoid the financail crisis was to end the new Mark To Market Rule.
Which is a perfect example of shallow thinking.
The value of anything is what a willing buyer and a willing sellor agree to. This is the core to economics. And is a featured premise to mark to market.
If Banks hold securities as part of their reserve requirements, the argument is those securities should be valued at whatever they traded at last.
This SOUNDS reasonable. But it misses what happened in 2008. Mortgage backed securities are secured by actual homes.
If the mortgage is defaulted on the Bank gets the home.
First – except for Government backed mortgages the typical mortgage is only for 80% of the value of the value of the home.
So in the worst case if the bank can sell the home for 80% of its value – the mortgage is fully covered.
But lets assume that the value of the home drops by 50% – nationwide nothing close to that happened.
In that case the bank would face approximately a 30% loss on the Mortgage – if they were forced to sell the property in a fire sale market.
That still meant the mortgage was worth 70% of its face value.
But starting in early 2008 the financial markets grasped that the housing market was in trouble and that it was not recovering in the short run.
As a result the market price investors were willing to pay for MBS’s started to drop. This forced banks holding MBS’s as part of their reserves to revalue those MBS’s and that caused some of them to no longer have sufficient reserves. That meant they could not lend any more money.
Through spring and Summer the Bush administration solved this worsening problem by forcing shotgun mergers between banks with insufficient reserves and investment banks that had massive amounts of capital. This was bad for shareholders in regular banks, but better than getting hosed entirely, and the investment banks bought regular banks at discounted prices.
But as things moved into Summer the market price of MBS’s continued to drop – making more and more banks without sufficient reserves to continue to lend money. And the Bush administration inexplicably refused to step in when Leahman was in trouble and allowed Leahman to go bankrupt.
That paniced the market and MBS’s tanked further, by late september the Market value of MBS’s had dropped 28%.
That was so low all banks refused to sell their MBS’s They all knew they were worth far more than that.
But without the full value of the MBS as part of their reserves they did not have sufficient reserves to continue lending money.
That not only stopped mortgages – which had tanked more than a year before, it stopped commercial lending – such as what nearly all businesses in the US rely on to cover operating expenses. That triggered business to start laying people off – becuase they did not have the case to pay them. Mind you these were solvent businesses. They were just used to borrowing cash for operating expenses – that is very normal in business and suddenly no one could lend them operating money.
All of this was actually resolved by the Fed which started printing money like crazy QE and then lending it to the banks who then had sufficient reserves to resume lending. But in the meantime the momentum was already headed to recession and the inertia was unstopable.
So the Fed QE ended the critical problem for Banks. But the economy was in recession.
I would note the recession was inevitable. The scale of the loss in assets nationally from the collapse of the housing market assured a recession,
You can not destroy something like $500B in home values in the blink of an eye and not have a recession.
TRAP I was a bill from congress in late 2008 that allowed the government to buy the MBS’s from Banks to recapitalize them.
Only problem – the Banks refused to sell for the price government was offering.
Everybody knew that the MBS’s were worth FAR MORE than face value. Bankers who undrestood housing from centuries of experience knew that if they waited long enough not only would their MBS’s recover full value, but they would prove profitable, just not as much as initially hoped.
TARP II was the process of Forcing Banks to take loans – that they really did not need, as the Banks had refused to sell their MBS’s.
So where does AIG fit in ? AIG is an insurance company and AIG had insured something like 300B worth of MBS’s.
They wrote a contract that if the value of MBS’s fell below some point, they would buy them from the banks at something like 50% of face value.
So in theory AIG needed to come up with about 140B to buy all the MBS’s they insured.
So why wasn’t AIG in deep Schiff ? Because just like TARP I, the banks never called AIG and said here is our MBS’s please give us cash.
Within 2 years of 2008 pretty much all MBS’s in the US had recovered to full face value.
So why was MTM a problem ? Because when there is no willing sellor, there is no market price. The MTM rule in Bassil II presumed there would always be willing buyers and willing sellors. It also presumed that if One sellor was willing to sell at fire sale prices that ALL sellors are willing to.
That is simply not true. MTM is a failure because it only tells you what price people willing to sell will accept, not what those obviously not willing to sell. Therefore it is not the correct price – especially in situations where one sellor is desparate.
The “financial crisis” was mostly inconsequential and resolved by QE.
But it trigger a recession – that was inevitable, but only tangentially related to the financial crisis.
The fact that the Financial crisis was the trigger for the recession does not mean it was the cause.
The cause was the housing bubble bursting.
The cause was the over valuation of houses caused by too low interest rates for too long.
This is the same problem that caused the great depression – NOT the Stock market.
In the 1920’s interest rates too low for too long did result in housing price issues. but the big factor is it resulted in massive over investment in business – factories. By 1929 US businesses had more productive capacity than people could even want at the time.
This massive excess capacity proved significant 10 years later as WWII aproached and dormant US production capacity rapidly came on line.
Before the US enter the War Admiral Canaris’s spies in the US estimated that the US would be able to produce about 50% more than the entire military output of the Axis. Hitler laughed and said that was impossible. In the end the US produced more war material in 3 1/2 years than the entire rest of the world combined by more than a factor of II. Exponentially more than Canaris thought and Hitler thought impossible.
“Steve Forbes has argued powerfully that the ONLY thing needed to avoid the financail crisis was to end the new Mark To Market Rule.”
Several plans of merit were presented to solve the problem. Martin Feldstein had one. I am not saying it would work or any of the others would work, but all of them moved in the same direction including Forbes. Stabilize real estate prices quickly. We didn’t do that.
You do not want to mess with the actual market.
We must be sure to think of the Housing Bubble bursting as two independent but related things.
The housing bubble HAD to burst, and there was going to be a recession as a result.
That is what must happen when the price of a long term fixed asset is driven artificially too high.
This is also why the nonsense that the stock market colapse triggered the great depression is false.
The dotcom collapse had almost no noticeable impact, despite the fact that the loss in value was huge.
Fixed assets, real property values are far more dangerous than stock prices. We expect those to be volatile.
Further the people invested in stocks for the most part are the investor class and can afford the losses.
Even today – clobber someones 401K and they vote the ba****s out. They do not starve, or lose their homes.
If you have someone suggesting stabalizing home prices – they are WRONG.
The market does that. The collapse of the housing bubble was necescary.
It was a correction for a decade and a half of bad fed and housing policy.
There was going to be a price that had to be paid.
At the same time while Fixed asset prices like homes can collapse.
Barring societal collapse they will recover.
The financial crisis conversely was artificial.
Absolutely the Banks got hammered. But just like the dotcom bust – they could deal with the losses.
Further those loses do NOT become real until they sell.
If you bough an MBS at 100, and it is now selling (or not selling) at 28, and you do not have to sell,
you KNOW that in a couple of years it will be back to 100.
Due to the way mortgages are structured the value of the home does NOT have to recover fully for the value of the mortgage to fully recover.
Regardless, we know that even though the financial system took a big hit, that it was still fine, specifically because the Banks were NOT going to AIG and swapping their MBS’s for cash.
This is really important. People blamed specific financial instruments for the financial crisis, Most of what they blamed HELPED and made the financial system more secure, not less.
There is a small issue with Securitization – converting mortgages into securities. That DOES reduce the risk of individual investors. It is roughly the same as diversifying a portfolio. If you buy an MBS that is a share in 1000 mortages, you make slightly less than if you buy 1 mortgage,
but your risk is lower because if one mortgage goes bust you could lose alot, but 1000 mortgages are not (and did not) go bust.
The “problem” with MBS’s is that they reduce risk to individual investors, but they do not change systemic risk. In fact they artificially inflate the tolerance of the system as a whole for risk, specifically because individual investers are more secure.
AIG was responsible for Credit Default Swaps. These are insurance against the mortgage holders default.
If the mortgages – or a tranche of MBS’s default sufficiently or their value goes to low, the owner of the MBS has bought from AIG the right to swap the MBS for cash. No one took advantage of this. No one even tried. And in fact had they done so while AIG would have ahad a massive problem coming up with the cash to cover its contracts, had it been able to do so over about a year it would have made a fortune.
Anyway the core problem of the financial crisis was not the collapse of home prices, or the default rate of mortgages, of securitization, or CDS’s or ….
The core problem was that Banks used MBS’s as part of their capital reserves. And the brand new MTM rule meant they had to devalue all their MBS’s on their books essentially to the last market price that MBS’s sold at. As I recall that was $0.28/$1.
That meant all banks were suddenly way shy on capital reserves, with no way to correct the problem.
They could not legally lend anymore, so they did not, so credit markets accross the US seized.
Corportations that were perfectly solvent could not get payroll loans. Any business that borrows to deal with cashflow issues, and nearly all businesses do suddenly had massive problems and no way to fix them.
And so they started laying people off.
Just to be clear – We were going to get a recession no matter what. Anything we did – like artificially prop up real estate would kick the can down the road and make the problem worse.
I know this might irk you, but as Hayek indicated, when messing with the market use the method that least affects the marketplace.
That being said, my comment had to do with several different promising suggestions.They were moving in the same direction as Forbes. I don’t know what the rest of the discussion has to do with that comment.
The method that least effects the market is to do nothing.
I will paraphrase Hayek for you – if you are going to make a mistake, make the smallest one possible
I agree, but the best choice is not to make a mistake.
“The method that least effects the market is to do nothing.
I will paraphrase Hayek for you – if you are going to make a mistake, make the smallest one possible”
Need I remind you of the other half of Hayek’s statement? Earlier, you were looking out for your kids and said you hoped the change would occur before they were 50. That is the page I am on. Each generation deserves its own bit of candy, so sometimes doing nothing doesn’t satisfy that need.
Your paraphrase of Hayek doesn’t deal with limited lifespans. I agree, doing nothing is the right way, but occasionally doing nothing can take several millennia before the change occurs. However, if you think the way you do, you and your heirs should spend less and save more because that will increase the resources of those grandchildren’s grandchildren.
“I agree, but the best choice is not to make a mistake.”
Those who never make mistakes seldom advance, and those who only look toward the future, never have a present.
The first suggestion was to support the housing market.
That had nothing to do with Forbes.
Aparently there was a mistake in my comment.
The collapse of the housing bubble is a different event from the financial crisis.
While there is a chain of causation between them, they are still independent.
The housing bubble collapse was not a fixable problem. Artificially low interest rates for atleast 15 years resulted in a classic asset bubble of the worst kind. This is right out of Austrian Theory, but it is not limited to austrians. It is also right out of Friedman’s monetarism.
Once you create the asset bubble there is no escaping the consequences. This was a big bubble, therefore big consequences.
Recession was inevitable.
Inarguably the collapse of the housing bubble was going to impact banks that held large amounts of MBS’s.
It also would have impacted Banks in a prior era if they held mortgages.
The distinction between MBS’s and Mortgage impacts this is in a couple of ways.
Mortgages are not liquid, therefore they do not count towards a banks capital reserves.
Absent “securitization” the impact on banks would have been different. But the overall impact on the economy would have been the same.
You can not obliterate that much artificially created value in a short period without economic consequences.
Generally securitization is beneficial – both as Banks can count MBS;s towards capital reserves and because fluctuations in the value of securities are generally not significant in their economic impact – see the dotcom bust.
The core problem was not securitization, but the Basil II MTM rule that left Banks suddenly regulatory insolvent and unable to lend.
This was similar to the Great depression where banks became ACTUALLY insolvent.
Regardless, the gist of my argument is the financial crisis was avoidable after the fact, the housing bubble collapse was not
Securitization was actually overall a good thing. Credit Default Swaps. and Collateralized Debt Obligations are good things not bad,
and actually mitigated the financial crisis.
But the core problem was the regulatory inability of banks to lend, and that was resolved by the FED long before TARP I or
TARP II which were both meaningless.
They also distorted public perception. Myriads, many not on the left beleive the government bailed out the financial system.
That is garbage. They loaned the financial system money it neither needed nor wanted, which was paid back rapidly at significant interest – because it was neither needed or wanted.
TARP was a sideshow that had nothing at all to do with the recovery of the financial system.
“The first suggestion was to support the housing market.
That had nothing to do with Forbes.”
My discussion had little to do with the individual plans suggested at the time. It was what the plans attempted to do, and the interesting ones attempted to not interfere with the market but to stabilize prices for the housing market to turn naturally. That was a big part of Forbes’s plan though it did it indirectly. The plans managed the two problems differently while attacking a part of the same problem. MTM and these plans tried to create a stable price in the housing market.
” Artificially low interest rates for atleast 15 years resulted in a classic asset bubble of the worst kind.”
Martin Feldstein addressed that problem so that houses underwater because of the failure could survive with willing owners, with those falling outside of standard pricing and loan terms would fend for themselves. It was more of a stop-gap for those whose homes were in balance with reality.
“Once you create the asset bubble there is no escaping the consequences. ”
In my mind, the problem was for those with no fault of their own who couldn’t escape the consequences. I wasn’t discussing the recession.
MBS caused instability if the bank creating the mortgage didn’t care, and why would such care be expected if they intended to pass on the risk to someone else? Why would they want to carry the loan if they could earn interest, fulfill reserve requirements, and loan more? That is where irresponsible banks made loans despite financial stability.
I have experience in that market, and though prudent following sound investment criteria, when the bottom fell out, there was no way to protect one’s investment. The values were temporarily way below a reasonable expected market price.
“Several plans of merit were presented to solve the problem.”
Start with this: Get rid of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Both socialize risk.
Fannie and Freddie are problems, they contributed to the housing bubble. They did not cause it.
Asset bubbles are always caused by bad monetary policy.
After the infamous Kelo decision, Allison announced that the bank would not finance any projects where the property was confiscated via eminent domain, stating in part:
“Property rights are essential for the protection of all rights and the foundation for a free society and an economically successful one.”
*That* is a man of principle.
I wonder what other comapnies had FBI agents inform them that customers were violating their terms of service. Yep- nothing to see here- more right along….
The FBI paid Twitter over $3m for time spent dealing with its requests. If the FBI were really just alerting Twitter to potential violations of Twitter’s TOS, they were conferring a benefit on Twitter, so the payment should have been the other way.
Twitter doesn’t pay anyone who flags comments. They also don’t pay commenters who post tweets that draw readers to Twitter, to Twitter’s benefit.
@11:22
I suppose that means something in your head, but not to anybody else
Daniel understood. Probably because he read it in context, as it was intended.
Musk got rid of 70% of his employees. I’m certain a portion of those people were paid to flag comments. Like a whole division in the company were paid to flag comments for ghosting, de-amplifying, and removing. The FBI was there to point out the ones that exposed the phony narrative desired by the White House. Like, masks work. Or the mRNA shot prevents the spread of, and contraction of, the target virus. Because the truth is dangerous to the propaganda.
The evidence is clear the FBI was actively working to suppress (censor) speech. There is no reasonable mission for the FBI’s massive presence at twitter.
Maybe I was being too subtle for you. The FBI paid Twitter because Twitter was providing a service to the FBI. If Twitter had been acting for itself there would have been no reason for a payment. What other person notifying Twitter of potential violations of Twitter’s TOS paid Twitter for the time Twitter spent in response?
You should educate yourself about the reason for the FBI’s payment:
https://www.techdirt.com/2022/12/20/no-the-fbi-is-not-paying-twitter-to-censor/
Your link includes a link to a twitter generated “transparency” report that is 100 weeks old. ie: raw twitter propaganda.
All you did is repeat an opinion that is wrong. There is a bunch of emotive and qualifying language to gusy up nothing but excuses for unconstitutional actions. The FBI has no business monitoring twitter content for ToS flags.
The tip off was your link claiming that the FBI had nothing to do with the banning the laptop story. Like granting classified clearance to twitter execs in order to share phony classified intel about predicting Russia disinformation coming. The FBI had the laptop for a year and knew it was not Russian disinformation.
So yes the FBI worked for months setting the stage for twitter to ban the story….a story that never violated any ToS
Typical ATS link. It says nothing but opinion that is naive at best, or an attempt at damage control. ATS wishes to post the link but can’t provide any substance from it because no substance exists. One could confuse the writer of the link with ATS, except the writer is more verbose. Neither have content.
“the FBI’s payment”
Dear Simon & Schuster:
Please do not publish Matt Taibbi’s new book _The Twitter Files_. Here’s $500k in censorship money.
XO,
The FBI
“. . . flagged by the FBI for ‘possible civic misinformation.’” (JT, then quoting the FBI)
“Civic misinformation”
Let that sink in.
That is the secular version of “blasphemy.”
Will Turley delete this comment advocating violence?