93 Comments
User's avatar
Safir Ahmed's avatar

We underestimate the power of greed -- for the Goldman Sachs of the world and for the smaller investors who buy crappy "products" like CDO's and SPACs.

They are all chasing quick profits -- without producing any goods that society needs, and without doing any real work to earn the profits.

It's hard to have any sympathy for such people. Pox on all their houses.

Expand full comment
SimulationCommander's avatar

Yes. This is the 'fake' economy (enabled by massive amounts of money flooding the system) overtaking the 'real' economy of trading goods and services. It never ends well when being close to the money-making machine is a better idea that ensuring customers are happy.

Expand full comment
Doug Knauer's avatar

Because the money-making machine keeps getting bailed out by the feds every time it craters (to 'save!' our economy), not Joe Six-Pack.

Expand full comment
SimulationCommander's avatar

Exactly. When you just print, there's always money for endless wars or ridiculous government programs -- the rest of us are stuck paying the costs in the form of higher prices as the "elites" print the wealth out from underneath us.

And when we can no longer pay for our homes or businesses, they swoop in and gobble up those things up for pennies on their newly printed dollar.

Expand full comment
Bakelite72's avatar

Indeed. Folks who are unfamiliar with the work of economist Michael Hudson should seek him out on Substack & YouTube (I particularly recommend his regular tag-team sessions with fellow economist Richard Wolff on Nima Alkhorsid's excellent Dialogue Works channel); also, Mr. Hudson's seminal book "Super Imperialism" is a must-read. He has done a great job explaining in layman's term's just what the US system is and how it has weaponized the dollar against the rest of the world; lately, he has emphasized the difference between Productive Capitalism (which is largely beneficial to everyone) and "Rentier" -- or Financial -- Capitalism (which is nothing but parasitic and destructive toward the great majority of us).

Expand full comment
Mike R.'s avatar

I always have mixed emotions when listening to Wolf and Hudson....Chris Hedges also. Their reporting makes economic and moral sense but I'm not a Communist. Or a Capitalist. I am (at least for now) simply a free citizen of the American Republic. I don't understand why our national dialogue and American life is dictated by polar extremes. Our founders worked hard to include empowering lines of human moral demarcation in our Constitution which our elected political leadership ignores at will. The current push to allow the seizure of American public lands for the benefit of the oligarchy is treasonous. The shadow destruction of American lives and communities which accompanies political/financial manipulation and greed is despicable. Out of control rents, manipulated supply chains, gutted industry and unions, a crumbling infrastructure, human trafficking and cartel/spook land control of the drug trade and the prison pipeline so that a handful of rigged game grifters can buy another congressman and a brand

new jet.

It's time to admit that We the People are allowing the future of our Republic to be controlled by second rate

moral cripples. Again: Communism and Capitalism are stone cold dead because the communists and capitalists outright killed them. America--WESTERN CIVILIZATION--is being colonized and destroyed by a handful of totalitarian thugs. Subscription journalism, truth speakers alone aren't going to save us.

Expand full comment
Jose Weto's avatar

I like what you've written here and like you, I'm no commie. But I will say that IMO, Mssrs. Wolff, Hudson and Hedges are towering intellects for whom we 'proles should be grateful. I am much closer to being a commie than a Technocrat or either of the two organized crime waves acting as political parties in the US.

Expand full comment
Mike R.'s avatar

I agree. And I listen/view/read all three. My problem--on both ends of the spectrum--is the extreme polarities--the absolutes at both ends--that seem to undermine our national conversation and trap us inside what is obviously psychopathy not politics. Our founding fathers worked hard to place the human moral reason in our Constitution that would allow our elected "best and brightest" to find workable solutions to our Republics problems. Any change coming is one citizen at a time shaking off the lie. It's us. Not them.

Expand full comment
SimulationCommander's avatar

When the money is fake, the rest of the economy is doomed to follow.

Expand full comment
ResistWeMuch's avatar

yep. bad money always pushes good money into hiding.

Expand full comment
Substack Reader's avatar

I don't know what to think. If you mean the USD is fake, Bitcoin and the $Trump meme coin don't inspire confidence in me. And the more bad news there is, the higher the market goes. It's almost like the first two months of Obama's presidency, only in reverse. Or maybe it's late 90s and the market will run a lot further. But, as some economist said, if a trend can't continue indefinitely, it won't.

Expand full comment
SimulationCommander's avatar

The dollar can be (and is) fake regardless of whatever crypto schemes are out there.

(But for the record, one of those things is not like the other.)

Expand full comment
Substack Reader's avatar

Eric, maybe one day you could write about the Trump meme coin. One wallet made 300 million in the first few days. Since then, the coin has lost 85 percent of its value.

Expand full comment
Noam Deplume, Jr. (look,at,me)'s avatar

The purpose of the Trump meme coins (Melania has one, too) is to launder bribes. Witkoff was involved from the get go.

Expand full comment
Substack Reader's avatar

How would that work, though? It would be like "bribing" Elon Musk by buying Tesla stock, wouldn't it? It's not going to him directly and the effect would be temporary. Maybe I don't understand. I think it's sleazy, don't get me wrong, but I'm not sure the bribery accusations are sound. But I don't know.

Expand full comment
Noam Deplume, Jr. (look,at,me)'s avatar

Good question. Briber turns cash into Trump coin and gets desired executive order. Trump pockets trading fees and, at his leisure, turns some of his 80% horde of $Trump coin, which has no intrinsic value, into cash. "The New York Times reported that Trump affiliates controlled an additional *800 million tokens* that, hypothetically, could be worth over $56 billion, potentially making Trump one of the richest people in the world at an estimated net worth of $63.8 billion."

"On May 13, The New York Times reported that GD Culture Group, a small company with ties to China, no reported revenue in 2024, and affiliated with TikTok, announced it would spend $300 million on purchasing Bitcoin and $TRUMP"

"The venture and the possibility of foreign governments buying the coin and enriching Trump was highlighted as possibly violating the Constitution's foreign emoluments clause.[25] Critics said it could allow special interests and foreign governments to seek to buy influence with the president.[26]" All quotes from Wikipedia.

Expand full comment
Substack Reader's avatar

If someone makes a large purchase, the price would spike, but it's not going to stay there. And all the trades are public, hidden only by the anonymity of the wallets' owners. I've seen the media accusations, but they don't present a mechanism for actually doing it. Maybe it can be done, but if so, the accusers need to explain how.

Expand full comment
Noam Deplume, Jr. (look,at,me)'s avatar

"The anonymity of the wallet's owner" doesn't seem very public, does it? The "price spikes" of Bitcoin seem to have endured. Any reason to believe a briber would sell their tokens? That would be deceitful and treacherous and Trump et al might know their wallet number, yes?

Trump and partners hold 800 million tokens, priced by the 200 million available on the market. That wealth can serve as collateral for loans to extract cash without selling the tokens, just like a property that has appreciated in value and can be used as security for a loan.

Expand full comment
Substack Reader's avatar

I'm asking about the mechanism for how it would actually work. If I had $10 million to give to Trump, how exactly would I do that via the Trump meme coin?

Expand full comment
Noam Deplume, Jr. (look,at,me)'s avatar

If you were a foreign government, of course you couldn't give him the $10 million directly. You would buy his meme coin and not sell it.

Expand full comment
Substack Reader's avatar

I suppose the guy could buy $10 million of $Trump meme coin and then transfer the coins directly to Trump, but they also could do that with Bitcoin. Basically, they are just hiding the transfer. Maybe there are advantages to having your own personal meme coin. I hope Eric decides to write about it.

Expand full comment
Noam Deplume, Jr. (look,at,me)'s avatar

That would cost the full $10 million and would be illegal. Becoming a silent partner in an appreciating asset held jointly would be just like buying stock, not illegal. Since Trump et al hold 80%, their increase in net worth is multiplied by four. If there weren't advantages, Trump wouldn't risk being painted as a money grubbing influence peddler.

Expand full comment
Substack Reader's avatar

What I'm saying is this: If I buy $10 million worth of $TRUMP meme coin, it doesn't do a thing for Trump. If it caused a temporary spike, Trump would have to be trading short term in order for it to matter at all. What you're saying is akin to saying a person buying the Japanese yen is becoming a silent partner. No, he's just buying a fungible currency.

Making $300 million in three days at the launch is an "advantage." What more could a person want? But the idea that the meme coin allows people to bribe Trump seems a shallow media concoction that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Anyway, maybe Eric will write about it.

Expand full comment
Nick Heffernan's avatar

God bless DJT. Tax cuts for the 1% and more deregulation of Wall Street. Just what the MAGA base was crying out for. And he’s thrown in some new wars too!

Expand full comment
Susan G's avatar

Well, I am a retiree who saved her money in a 401k and IRAs and now lives on Social Security (SS) and the Required Minimum Distributions (RMD) from my retirement accounts. I pay income taxes on SS and the RMD. If the big, beautiful bill fails, my income taxes will increase by approx $5,000. I am no 1%er, and there are millions of retired Americans just like me. The tax cuts set to expire benefited millions of people, increasing the standard deduction and reducing marginal rates.

Expand full comment
GRP's avatar

Typical example of a not bad idea gone awry. SPACS were a quicker way to take a private company public. Usually the losers were all "accredited" so who cares. My concern is that it is very difficult to go public and there are far fewer public companies available for investors (accredited or not). Remember the Wilshire 5000? Now it is barely 4,300. And with the popularity of stock buybacks, it seems there is so little public equity for anyone to buy.

Expand full comment
Big John stud's avatar

Similar to what I was thinking. Because of Sarbox going public is too costly and too much of a hassle so companies have to use SPAC's to raise money on public markets. What a disaster Sarbox is....formed to avoid situations like Enron, which had a bunch of shell companies to hide accounting shenanigans, now Wall Street is openly creating overvalued shell companies to get around Sarbox BS.

Expand full comment
Eric Salzman's avatar

I was toggling with the lead in...idiotic vs abused..... you both make good points.

Idiotic read funnier to me

Expand full comment
Jim O'Donnell's avatar

Worst bill ever. Boat anchor on the economy. Honorable mention: Dodd Frank.

Expand full comment
Big John stud's avatar

Ha! Dodd Frank. Forgot about that one. We could just get rid of Gramm-Leach-Bliley and bring back Glass-Steagal....nah, let's just do this Dodd Frank thing and then Wall Street will keep sending us money and hookers.

Expand full comment
Ministryofbullshit's avatar

I’d like to see an investigation on the climate grift. I have a feeling that Democrats mandated electricity for older apartment buildings (being financially impossible to upgrade for some owners) opened up an opportunity for Pelosi, Banks and Democrat run cities to buy older buildings for pennies on the dollar.

Climate mandates are government takings. SCOTUS seems to agree.

Expand full comment
Jose Weto's avatar

That's a superb point. Michael Shellenberger explains the climate grift beautifully in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey7iWsDYnJ8&t=60s

I always figured that the electrification of everything was so that they could control the energy citizens used to cook, drive, shower down to the last watt. But Pelosi and Banks getting in on the scam makes sense. Insurance is a similar scam. Insurance companies are refusing to insure houses in rural areas, making the property worth much less. In comes Pelosi with the quick cash!

The Rockefellers started the climate scam with The Club Of Rome in the 70s.

Expand full comment
Mike R.'s avatar

The commodification of human beings and their reduction to interchangeable thingdom is well underway. Uneducated disposable labor and access to all natural resources for personal profit and gain without oversight or consequence. Americans are the last free people standing.

The American Congress is preparing the wholesale distribution of our Republics public lands and parks to the nabobs of the ascending world totalitarian state. They're slavers and there is no other way to see it. Can the truth be heard over the screaming lie they represent? Can the truth save us? Arrests in England for thought crimes. The ever expanding euthanasia industry in Canada. Palantir surveillance serving the wealthy elite. The greatest upward transfer of wealth in human history.

There will be no darkness at the edge of town, only the floodlights of the special forces mercenaries protecting the private compounds and former parklands of the trillionaire elite. Then, the mother of all scamdemics and the sudden planned for depopulation of the sad little people who let the greatest Republic in the history of the world die. Who you gonna call?

(Not aimed at you Jose.)

Expand full comment
Jose Weto's avatar

This is one of the best, chat comments I've ever read, thanks Mike. You connect so many dots to create a terrible dystopian picture. But the truth is the truth, yes?

Expand full comment
Mike R.'s avatar

Thanks. More a rant than a comment I'm afraid.

If you have the time (sorry-tried to copy the link) Youtube: Intercollegiate Studies Institute/GLOBAL REPLACISM AND THE WEST. Four presentations and a panel discussion lasting about an hour and a half. It includes N.S. Lyons of the UPHEAVAL. For myself it explains the motivation behind the corruption and chaos in a concise way.

You can try this link: https://you.be/MqLkh7UXBs0?si=5m_fP9xz51a5

Stay strong. Stay clear.

Expand full comment
Ministryofbullshit's avatar

I did read (it must be scrubbed from the interwebs ) that Pelosi and Goldman were partnering in buying up older buildings in Salt Lake City. It’s also to control and ration energy. Just like Cubas state run grid (which is, ummm, not running so well now). Think about a digital run on banks?

Expand full comment
Christopher Gaskins's avatar

Disclosure: I am a commercial real estate appraiser and broker of 32+ years.

RE: "Climate mandates are government takings." That is a new and very interesting way of framing the current state of many systems. I can see how a plausible argument could be made that the climate mandates are functioning as an inverse condemnation because they are causing material diminution of property value. That would be a violation of the Fifth Amendment ("5A") because it would be a government takings without due process or just compensation. Further, government takings are only permissible when they are for public use.

The climate mandates are predicated on saving the planet which, by definition, is the global public. The constitution does not apply to the global public; only the American public. That could be an interesting 5A basis of challenge. One might be able to take that public/private 5A issue further since the uncompensated-for value diminution is, to a substantial extent, being realized not by the American public, but by private actors categorically and sometimes specifically chosen by the state.

The structural problem with these arguments is that the value of property—meaning any asset, whether tangible or intangible, real or personal—is an emergent result of a space-time-specific intersection of numerous systems of abstract laws. Further, those laws were created through legislative processes that, in theory, represented the will of the people. Just as the will of the people can write laws that generally increase property value, so too can the will of the people write laws that generally decrease property value.

At what point does the power of the people go too far and the situation tips over into being a taking without due process and just compensation? That would be an interesting legal question run up the pole. And to make it even more interesting, the case would almost have to start out as, or effectively morph into, a class action. This sounds like a situation that would run into similar difficulties as Murthy v. Missouri.

What SCOTUS cases were you referring to RE: "Climate mandates are government takings. SCOTUS seems to agree"?

Expand full comment
Ministryofbullshit's avatar

Recent Diamond vs. EPA allows energy producers to sue California. A federal program that allows only California to set their own electrification standards. There is chatter that Denver property owners want the AG to look into the Denver Mandates.

https://denvergazette.com/news/building-owners-appeal-to-ag-bondi-over-energy-regulations/article_5ada6cdd-3743-403a-a1ec-c9d06ea6b285.html

Following the same eventual property takings (wink wink) through the guise of climate mandates.

Expand full comment
Christopher Gaskins's avatar

Interesting case. Thank you for sharing that link.

Expand full comment
Tim's avatar

“ Further, government takings are only permissible when they are for public use.” Unfortunately, SCOTUS has also seen fit to expand the definition of “public use” to include such things as a new Walmart…

Expand full comment
Christopher Gaskins's avatar

I know it was not a takings for a Walmart, but I was deeply dismayed with the Kelo v. City of New London SCOTUS decision. For the alleged public benefit behind Kelo to never even have come to fruition is like dropping a road rashed motorcyclist into the middle of the Bonneville Salt Flats and forcing him to log roll his way out of it. Disgusting.

Expand full comment
DaveL's avatar

A good idea. Along with “Green” and “Clean” grift.

Expand full comment
Ken Braun's avatar

I think we need a review of a SPAC Deli corned beef & Swiss before judging too harshly. Maybe it was FDA approved?

Expand full comment
Gilgamech's avatar

> 30,000 unsold companies worth about $1.8 trillion

If they’re unsold, they’re not worth $1.8 trillion. A thing is worth what you can sell it for.

Expand full comment
Bobbie Douglas's avatar

ok, so they should have added "on paper" to that figure

Expand full comment
Mark's avatar

SPACS are not an idiotic idea. They are a half idiotic idea. The investment bankers make a fortune. For them, it's a briliant idea. The investors do poorly so only for them is it an idiotic idea. Speaking as someone who has lost a lot of money investing in stupid stocks, if you're not smart enough to put your money in an index fund and forget it, you are too dumb to invest on your own.

Expand full comment
NYC M&AHole's avatar

Things are bad on Wall Street when they stop doing Coke and do SPAC instead.

Expand full comment
Rex's avatar

About two weeks ago the financial paper Barron's wrote an article about college endowments who were 'stuck' in "illiquid" Private Equity investments. The idea with SPACs is to unload these dogs on unsuspecting IRA and 401k investors. Don't fall for it. IMHO, this proposed project constitutes criminal intent. Welcome to Wall Street.

Expand full comment
the long warred's avatar

Gamblers gonna gamble

Expand full comment
GRP's avatar

SPACs get stuck in SARBOX land as well. SARBOX is just another attempt to avoid any problems like Enron, but they usually just make things so complicated that fewer people participate except the big players (like Goldman) who can afford to deal with the regulations.

Expand full comment
DaveL's avatar

Another manifestation of regulatory capture, it appears.

Expand full comment
GB HeBe's avatar

Crypto SPAC! What could go wrong?

Expand full comment
Larry's avatar

"it is a bit discomfiting that a financial product’s production rises and falls with disclosure requirements."

Anyone who is stupid enough to invest money in a SPAC deserves to be discomfited when they lose their investment.

Expand full comment
Bently's avatar

I was listening to Michael Hudson. He said a study had come out that analyzed the true costs of the resurrection from the 2008 collapse. The TARP fund received the most attention and all exclaimed how every penny was paid back to the government.

What they ignored was, the FED balance sheet expanded by $9.0 trillion dollars for all the machinations by the FED during the time period of the recovery. The FED gave real cash to the banks in exchange for the financial WMD's that were worthless equal to the unmarked-down book value the Banks showed on their books prior to the collapse. Those worthless assets were recorded as liabilities on the FED's Balance sheet (a loan from the banks). The FED paid the banks 5% interest for their generosity in lending the securities to the FED. It's criminal.

The 10 million homeowners that suffered foreclosure- well, who cares. The foreclosed were disproportionately Black and Hispanic. Hudson opined that Obama was the most vicious racist president in history.

Expand full comment