Business Insider reports that, in addition to the $5 million, Lindell will also have to pay the guy’s attorney fees. A federal judge has ordered Lindell to pay Zeidman $4,508 in attorney fees. Zeidman had initially sought as much as $12,800 for approximately 16 billed hours, but the judge ruled that some of Zeidman’s legal discovery requests were “overly broad”
Okay, so you don't know. Here's a very in depth article about it -- briefly summarized, most of the idea that Biden printed money or caused inflation or pain for working people is pure outlandish fantasy. But, his explicitly working-class-friendly policies (summarized here) did "cause inflation" to a certain extent -- basically, by keeping people employed and eating, they were able to bid up the price of goods, which spread the pain of the Covid recovery (pretty much limited to the singular year 2022) across the entirety of the economic spectrum when inflation was going to happen anyway. But that's a good thing, and a very rare reaction for a US policymaker to have. And again, that inflation was actually in the final analysis near the bottom of what other countries experienced anyway.
IDK man. You're right that I was being condescending about it. But I think your analysis is completely wrong, and I think that explicit propaganda which looks very similar to what you were saying is very damaging to the politics of this country.
Let me try a different way, more polite: If I got you wrong and you were trying to say what I said above, then sure, I apologize. If I had you pegged right and you were just claiming that Biden was printing money because that's a fun thing to say, then I stand by it.
How much money did Biden print? Why didn’t it have any impact on inflation before or after 2022? Why did he do it, and what was the alternative?
(There actually is a sense in which what you’re saying has some validity, but I think most of what you’re saying is inaccurate and I am curious if you know the sense in which it is true, or are just saying that Biden printed money because that’s a fun thing to say. And I wasn’t saying Trump doing it meant Biden didn’t; that was just by way of contrast with Biden’s actions which in no way were printing money to solve problems, to any degree that I’m aware of.)
pouring money into the economy/printing like we have undoubtedly had some impact on inflation.
See this is the kind of stuff I'm talking about
It's easy to hear it and just nod your head like yeah, printing money, pouring money into the economy, makes sense, Biden bad
Except it's just a bunch of nonsense. Trump printed a bunch of money and then poured it into the economy (including, quite literally, around a trillion dollars of just out-and-out "I lied on the form and got away with it" Covid aid fraud). That's part of why we had the huge post-Covid inflation. Biden, in contrast, raised corporate taxes by trillions of dollars, and then spent it on (poured it into) the economy. That's why the US economy is doing better than most first world countries inflation-wise, either at this point, or in total aggregate, and why we saw wage growth that for the most part kept pace with the huge bump of inflation which we certainly did get in 2022.
As is tradition, the Republican fucked everything up, and then successfully blamed his successor for things being fucked during the successor's term of office. You would think that people would remember 15% unemployment and having to wash your groceries and hide in your house and a multi-trillion-dollar emergency bailout program so half the country didn't go out of business and starve, but apparently not.
On the front page earlier today was an account of somebody who carried a gun; in two separate instances, people from his neighborhood ambushed him and shot him (and in one instance it was verified on security footage that he defended himself with it after he’d been shot, and would have been killed without having the gun on him). In both cases he got charged with unlawful possession and imprisoned for the gun that saved his life.
It is IMPERATIVE for their argument that I be hostile to socialism, even though I am being perfectly friendly to the content of this video (which they are claiming is socialism even though as far as I can tell it’s a pretty mild form of anti-hypercapitalism which almost everyone can agree with at this point).
If they didn’t recast my arguments into totally different things then they would have to do some thinking in order to disagree with me. “lol he’s a liberal” is cheap, easy, fun, and popular.
I think it was Friedrich Engels who said that if you want a good solid socialist education, it’s imperative to watch in full as many weird slanty YouTube videos with suspiciously high production values as you can get your hands on.
Certainly possible. What do you think... instead of analyzing things critically the best that I'm able, should I just start saying "superficially left wing == good, someone called it 'liberal' == bad"? Or maybe just going with the majority of the group?
IDK, I'm not planning to do either of those things, just asking what you think.
I believe that the video's main thesis -- that financial commoditization has taken over education and that's it's a problem -- is honest and accurate. And I learned a little bit from the transcript (Reagan's involvement in changing the system way back when in the 70s in California.)
That's what threw me for a loop. Most of what I see come out of Second Thought is "and that's why don't vote for the Democrats" faux-socialism. It's like... hey, are you feeling okay? This video seemed fine and that's not normal.
The video discusses how higher education in the US has become increasingly expensive and financialized.
Over the last 40 years, college costs have tripled, even accounting for inflation.
The average total cost of a bachelor's degree in the US is now nearly a quarter-million dollars.
The video focuses on the University of California (UC) system as an example.
Historical Context:
In the past, higher education existed on a spectrum:
Elite private schools were expensive luxury goods.
Public education was nearly free in some places.
The UC system initially charged no tuition, only introducing small fees in 1921.
Until the 1960s, tuition remained relatively cheap by modern standards.
Two pivotal events changed this:
Ronald Reagan becoming governor of California in 1967
Lyndon B. Johnson signing the Higher Education Act in 1965
Reagan's Impact:
Cut public funding for schools in the UC and Cal State systems.
Forcibly shut down all 28 campuses.
Started relying on tuition to fund schools.
Motivation was partly to curb student activism and limit working-class access to higher education.
Higher Education Act (HEA):
Gave students unprecedented access to federal loans without collateral.
Intended to increase access to education while costing the government little.
In practice, it allowed both private and public schools to increase tuition dramatically.
Commodification of Education:
Education shifted from a public good to a private commodity.
Colleges began selling the idea that education was necessary to avoid economic stagnation.
Schools could raise prices without improving quality and still see rising demand.
Financialization:
In 2009, UC Board of Regents announced a 32% tuition increase.
Schools began issuing "General Revenue Bonds" to investors.
Universities use raised tuition as collateral for these bonds.
Money from bonds often goes to non-educational projects like new buildings and sports centers.
These projects aim to improve the school's brand and rankings, which in turn improves their credit rating.
Consequences of Financialization:
Paying back debt takes precedence over educational priorities.
Schools are required to raise tuition to repay bondholders.
Job security for educators and staff is reduced.
More reliance on part-time lecturers and adjuncts (70% of professors are now part-time).
Outsourcing of dining and custodial jobs.
University administrators' salaries increase, modeled on private sector compensation.
Vicious Cycle:
Tuition increases fund non-educational projects.
These projects increase rankings and wealth inequality.
This justifies further tuition increases and improves bond ratings.
The cycle benefits investors and administrators while burdening students and educators.
Conclusion:
The current system treats education as a financial asset rather than a social good.
This approach undermines the societal benefits of widespread access to higher education.
The video argues that this financialization of education is detrimental to society's progress and future preparedness.
The video ends by mentioning that it's funded through viewer support on Patreon due to the controversial nature of its content.
I mean, it seems fine. I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop somehow. This is the very first Second Thought video I've heard of that seems informative and honest, so you're gonna have to forgive me a certain amount of suspicion.
DES MOINES, IOWA - JANUARY 15: Republican presidential candidate, former U.S. President Donald Trump's senior campaign advisors Susie Wiles (C) and Chris LaCivita (R) leave a meeting with Trump on caucus day, January 15, 2024 in Des Moines, Iowa.(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
