Why would anyone want to be a cop right now?

As I’ve said many times, in the current environment, there are soon going to be only two kinds of cops – the REALLY good ones: who are still doing it because they love the work and have a sense of duty, even though they’re treated like the scum of the earth, and the REALLY bad ones: The ones who “get off” on the power of the badge, who are corrupt, or who are so inept they know they’d never make it in the world of business where you actually have to produce something to succeed.

As the younger generation who’ve come up learning that “All Cops Are Bastards” and that policing is inherently racist reach adulthood, the first kind is slowly going to disappear.

Who, in their right mind, would want a job where you’re hated by half the population, working crap hours, underpaid and expected to perform perfectly in every respect every time without fail…and, even if you do perform perfectly, if the outcome turns out badly, there’s a very good chance you’ll be thrown under the bus, at best lose your job and at worst end up in prison?

Seems I’m not alone in that sentiment.

My advice to my fellow officers is simple: The best thing you can do to take care of yourself and your family is to walk away from the table before the dealer decides to clean you out. If you have the skillset to be successful in this profession, you will be successful outside of it.

It’s worth reading the whole thing.

Be prepared to defend yourself and your family because if we aren’t already on our own out there, we very soon will be.

Share

Economics 101

Joe Huffman commented on why he doesn’t trust Bitcoin in the current environment and in that post he made one statement that drew my attention:

What if people start losing their faith? Doesn’t the value of Bitcoin decrease exponentially with this loss of faith?

One of the commenters hit on the subject that crossed my mind:

Second observation: all currencies, digital or otherwise, are entirely faith-based. They differ only in the number and fervency of the believers.

But I wanted to expound on that a little bit.

I’m not trying to insult anyone’s intelligence here, but there are a lot of people out there who really don’t grok basic economics. Even some who do insist that the principles don’t apply in some situations. Heck, the entire premise of Keynesian economics is that big governments can just ignore all those common sense rules that your grandpa taught you because if you’re “too big to fail” they don’t apply.

Until they do. Dramatically. Cue the Venezuela reference.

At any rate, back to the subject at hand:

The value of anything is what other people will trade you for it. At the most basic level, people trade because they value something that they have less than they value the item they wish to trade for.

If I grow pigs, and have a bunch of them but what I really need right now is a new pair of overalls, I might be willing to trade a pig or two for a nice pair of overalls. I value the overalls more than I value the pigs (right now) because I have more pigs than I need.
If you make overalls but really, really love bacon, it’s very possible that you might value the pigs higher than the overalls and a mutually beneficial trade can be arranged. In free trade we both win, because we both end up trading something of relatively lower value to us, for something of relatively higher value to us. Plus, depending on what it is we’re trading for, our productivity may be improved causing us to have even more of a surplus of our products enabling more trade and adding more and more value to the overall community. That’s how wealth is “created”…but that’s another discussion.

Currency is nothing more than a proxy for the goods and services to be traded. What if I have an excess of pigs, and you have an excess of overalls, but you HATE bacon and don’t want my pigs? I could try to find someone who does eat bacon to trade with and hope they have something that you might want, but that could get pretty complicated pretty quickly. The glazier likes bacon but you don’t need a window either;  maybe the bricklayer needs a window, and you could use a new fireplace so I trade my pig to the glazier for a window, trade the window to the bricklayer in return for the bricklayer to build you a fireplace so I can get my overalls. Whew. You know what would make this a lot easier? If we had some universal thing that we could all trade with each other for anything. We’ll call it “currency”. I can sell my pigs for however much of this “currency” I can convince someone to pay and, when I’ve sold enough pigs and collected enough “currency” I can trade it to you for a pair of overalls and then you can trade the “currency” for whatever it is you need. That would make things much simpler wouldn’t it?

So…who decides how much of this “currency” we should trade in return for products and services? Well…we all do. If I am a skilled worker who is paid for my labor, I know how much effort I put into earning the amount of currency my employer paid me. How much I’m willing to pay for some other product or service is going to be based on how much value I place on my own labor. If you want me to purchase your goods or services, you’re going to have to negotiate a price wherein I’m satisfied that I’m getting at least as much value from you as I put into earning the currency. Then we get into competition and the free market but again, that’s a discussion for another time.

I know I’m putting this stuff into very simplistic terms and I’m not trying to insult anyone’s intelligence. What I’m trying to do is explain that, even as complicated as things can get when you get a bunch of “financial experts involved” at its basic level this stuff really is this simple.

What it boils down to is that generally people will trade for one (or more) of three reasons: The item they are trading for is of more practical value (by being consumed or used) to them than the item they’re trading away; They have confidence that the item they are trading for is going to increase in value over time more than what they’re trading and thereby increase their wealth; They have confidence that the item they are trading for will at least maintain its value over time and will prove more durable than what they traded for it, thereby preserving their wealth for the future.

When currency is used as a proxy for the traded goods and services, it has no inherent value in and of itself. Currency of any type is only as valuable as the goods and services it can be traded for. If suppliers of goods and services lose faith in the currency and stop accepting it in trade (or will only accept huge amounts of it) it becomes worthless.

That’s just as true for Dollars, Yuan, Euros, Gold, Silver, etc as it is for Bitcoin.

Some would argue that Gold and Silver have intrinsic value that makes them immune from such forces but I strongly disagree. Gold and Silver do have practical uses and when put to such purposes, their value is wrapped up in the practical uses to which they are put. The value of those metals is propped up to a certain level by the value of those practical purposes, but as a currency, their value is primarily based upon the value that others assign to it with respect to the goods and products they produce.

If those producers refuse to accept Gold and Silver in payment for their goods and services (or demand huge amounts of it) then the value of Gold and Silver drops to the level that can be supported solely by their practical uses…which may still be significant, but is likely much less than their potential value as a currency…a result of greatly reduced demand.

Anyway, that’s just a very long way for me to say “yea, that commenter is right”. Hopefully someone, someday reading this post will get something out of it.

By the way, if you’re interested in basic economics, there is a great resource from a world-renowned but completely unpretentious economist named Thomas Sowell that I highly recommend.

Buy Thomas Sowell-Basic Economics at Amazon

I get no kickback or other compensation for you using that link so if you find it somewhere else cheaper, knock yourself out…in fact if you find it somewhere cheaper online, feel free to post the link in the comments so others can save money too.

Share

The left’s game plan re crime and gun control

Bearing Arms this morning, has a post up about the Chicago Tribune publishing a story about rising black gun ownership that isn’t completely derogatory.

As surprising as that is, there is one line in the story that sparked my interest:

Many of the same Democrats who support criminal justice and policing reform because they see systemic bias inherent in the criminal justice system are eager to put more gun control laws on the books, even if that means they’ll be disproportionately enforced against minorities.

On the surface that may seem ironic but it’s really not counterintuitive at all when you think about what the left wants. This is true about many of their policies that, to any logical, rational, fact based analysis seems counterproductive or even hypocritical…think high minimum wage that increase unemployment, unfettered immigration that floods the market with cheap (below minimum wage) labor, “entitlements” that discourage self-improvement, and policies that discourage nuclear families.

The left wants the populace dependent on the government. That is the bottom line of their entire worldview. Leftism is their religion and the government is their god…everyone must be subservient to their god. Virtually everything they do is oriented toward that end. The problem is: how can they force independent, successful, self-reliant people to submit their will to government?

One of the most effective means is fear. You don’t really think all this China Virus madness is really just to protect us from a virus that almost exclusively affects the old and infirm and has a 99.7 percent survivability rate do you? It’s to instill fear and condition us to just mindlessly follow along with government edicts no matter how illogical or oppressive.

Same thing with their lax policies on crime combined with their determination to reduce the effectiveness of police and policing. How can they possibly get a strong, secure, confident people to bend the knee to big daddy government? The vast majority of violent crimes are committed by a very small percentage of society and they tend to be the same people committing violent crimes over and over again. How are they to ply their trade if we have an effective police force and firm punishment? They can’t terrorize their communities from behind bars now can they? So…eviscerate the Police, falsely accuse them of systemic racism, demonize them and sometimes criminalize them for doing their jobs. You end up with an ineffective Police department made up primarily of people who have no other job prospects.

At the same time, eliminate pre-trial incarceration, release violent offenders early, reduce sentencing guidelines, do everything possible to get the small percentage of the population who have the tendency toward violent crime out in the public where they can “do their thing”.

The result? Violent criminals freely roaming the streets and empowered by the knowledge that the Police department can and will do little to stop them.

Why? To instill fear of course. A confident, secure and successful populace doesn’t cry out to god government for help. You need the people to feel fearful, insecure and vulnerable to get them to do that.

But, what happens when the people don’t start turning to the government, but start equipping themselves to handle business? When, instead of becoming fearful, they become defiant and even more self-reliant?

We can’t have that…so…make it increasingly difficult for the non-violent to properly equip themselves to defend their families. The end goal is to eliminate completely the ability of the people to resist and force them to prostate themselves before the feet of almighty god government.

On the one hand, they’re freeing criminals from prisons, reducing sentencing, raising them up on pedestals if they are killed by the Police and reducing the ability of the Police to enforce the laws, on the other hand, they’re vilifying anyone who has ever committed even the most minor of offenses as untrustworthy and unsuitable to ever own the proper tools to resist evil.

Contradictory? Hypocritical? Illogical? Or just part of the plan.

Share

The government we deserve

I keep being told (by the ones who don’t just dismiss the obviously stolen 2020 election out of hand) that all the ills we suffered during the last election are going to be fixed before the next one, so Republicans have a good chance of taking back congressional majorities after the elections in 2022.

Sure they will

The “Establishment” Republicans, who are basically nothing more than the flip side of the same coin as the big government Democrats, were so desperate to get Trump out of office that they were willing to allow the voting process itself to be compromised. Now that the Genie’s out of the bottle, they’re not getting it back in. The precedent has been set. We’ve basically demonstrated to the democrats that they can change the rules whenever they want and steal an election with no consequences. They can do it brazenly and even on video and nothing will be done to correct it, not by the legislatures and not by the courts.

Basically, the court has ruled that you can’t contest election procedures before the election because you’re not a victim yet so you don’t have standing…but you can’t contest them after the election because you’ve already lost, for which there is no remedy, so the case is moot. Classic Catch-22.

As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, there are no election laws. They are unenforceable and so are meaningless.

I hope I’m wrong, but I believe that all the people on the right who are predicting the ’22 midterm election is going to change everything are going to be sorely disappointed.

Pretty much every state with any city in which the democrats control the election apparatus is going to have two Democrat senators. Just as in the 2020 election, that city will just crank out as many votes as they need to make the election go their way.

That’s pretty much every state with a couple of exceptions. So, after 2022, I expect the Dems to have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

More difficult is congressional representation, but the tenet holds. Any district with a city who’s election apparatus is run by democrats is going to have a democrat congressman. The democrats won’t have an overpowering majority like they will in the Senate, but they will have a majority.

Until something drastic and dramatic changes, there will be a democrat president and democrat majorities in the house and senate for the foreseeable future.

Which means government control over most aspect of our lives, toxic business climate, high taxes for the producers to pay for the bread and circuses for the masses, profligate spending on pet projects that pad the wallets of congresscritters and their associates/cronies/accomplices, eventually rampant inflation and economic collapse. With our already overwhelming debt and endlessly expanding deficit, the crash is only a matter of time.

I’ve been watching and talking about this slow motion train wreck for about 20 years now, and it’s just rolling right along. When the end comes, it’s going to be ugly. The most positive thing I can say about it is I hope I’m not around any more when the wreckage finally comes to rest.

I suppose it’s pointless to rail about it…even at least one of the founding fathers recognized the inevitability of this time.

“…I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt, too, whether any other Convention we can obtain may be able to make a better Constitution.”
–Benjamin Franklin

Or, in more succinct terms: A people always gets the government it deserves.

Share

Flawed penumbral reasoning.

I don’t disagree with the conclusion that this author reached, but I very much disagree with the path followed to reach it:

But in 1965, Justice William O. Douglas used penumbral reasoning in the majority opinion of Griswold v. Connecticut to declare that a right to privacy exists in the Constitution — even though it’s not written anywhere. He then used this newly discovered “right” to find that a ban on contraceptives was therefore unconstitutional. A right to privacy seems like a logical inclusion in the constitution. But rather than five justices declaring it a right, why didn’t we add it to the Constitution with an amendment?

I left the below as a comment to that post, but decided it would make a fine blog post on its own, so here it is:

The logical flaw in this column is that there absolutely ARE rights that are not specifically written into the Constitution.
The inclusion of the bill or rights in the Constitution was actually a relatively contentious issue at the time, the arguments against the first ten amendments included the possibility that enumerating certain rights would lead to infringements of any rights that were not specifically enumerated.

In fact, as part of a compromise in order to appease the side arguing against including the bill of rights on that basis, the 9th Amendment was included which specifically and clearly states it:

“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”
–Amendment IX, US Constitution.

So the claim that it is illegitimate for the Supreme Court to “make up” rights that aren’t spelled out in the bill of rights is…well…illegitimate.

The right to privacy in one’s personal dealings, I think, pretty fairly falls under the purview of the 9th Amendment as one of those un-enumerated rights they were talking about.

The issue isn’t with the Supreme court validating the concept of the right to privacy, but in interpreting that right cover a woman having her unborn child murdered because it happens within the shield of doctor-patient confidentiality and privacy. That’s the “logic” that required emanations and penumbras to reach.

There absolutely, positively are rights reserved to the people that are not enumerated in the Constitution and the Constitution itself even confirms this. It is absolutely, positively correct for the Supreme Court to affirm and uphold even unenumerated rights. What is incorrect and constitutes judicial activism is twisting logic and contorting common sense to extend those unenumerated rights to things that clearly violate the rights of others…like, for example, the right of another living human being to continue living.

Share

Gun ownership and pot – updated

Update – sorry about the previous version of this post…I just copied in a link to the blog and one of the comments I left there with no explanation. I intended it to be saved as a draft, not published, it was only intended as a reminder to me, not as a standalone post and it shouldn’t have appeared as it did. The below is what I actually intended to post /Update

One of the blogs I read daily posted about the recent trend toward state level legalization of marijuana for medicinal (but it applies just as well to recreational) use and the federal prohibition against users of such substances purchasing or possessing guns.

I left a couple of comments there about it, but I thought I’d expound a little here.

There are a couple of points related to this. First, the idea that common sense can be legislated into being.

Laws are only preventative in the sense that law abiding citizens will obey them to prevent being caught up in legal issues they would prefer to avoid. This is especially true of gun owners because some of the consequences of violating those laws can involve losing the right to keep and bear arms forever. We take those consequences seriously because we take the right seriously.

So, there is some deterrent effect to having laws, but when laws are layered on top of each other, they provide no additional deterrent effect.

For example: It is illegal to spray paint graffiti onto public property. If you make it illegal to carry spray paint on public streets, will that stop the graffiti problem? Of course not. If the perpetrator has already decided that they’re willing to break the law against spray painting public property, a lesser law against carrying the tools to do so isn’t going to deter them.

A point I raised in one of my comments is worth repeating here: One of the things that anti-gun business owners never seem to grasp is that when they put that “no guns allowed sign” on their door, the only people they’re keeping out are the ones they need have no concern over.

Someone who sees that sign and says “well, the owner says I can’t come in so I won’t go in” is the very one who is determined to follow the rules and exercise good judgement. This is the person who is no danger whatsoever. The person who is prone to errors in judgement or ignoring the rules is the one who’s going to see the sign and say “screw him, I’m going in anyway”. So, what you end up with is the only people in your establishment who are armed are exactly the ones you should have been trying to keep out. As soon as that guy entered your store, everyone else there was at the mercy of the least trustworthy person in the place.

The prohibition by the federal government on ownership of firearms by people who use substances that are legal in their state of residence is no different.

The use of firearms in public while impaired is already illegal in every state and locality of which I’m aware. It doesn’t matter whether you’re impaired by alcohol, marijuana, or prescription medications, when you are under the influence, it is illegal to have a gun in public…just like it’s illegal to operate any other type of dangerous weapon, including cars, while under the influence.

The law doesn’t say you can’t own a car, or have it parked in your driveway while under the influence. Or that you can’t own a car if you ever use substances that impair judgment and performance, only that the use of them don’t mix.

Why are guns and marijuana treated differently than, say, guns and alcohol, or guns and prescription oxycontin, or guns and Nyquil? Does the law making it illegal to own a gun if you use substances that are legal at the state level really make anyone safer?

The kind of people that are irresponsible enough to use firearms, whether in public or at home, while impaired, are not going to be deterred by a law that says they can’t own a gun if they use these particular substances.

The only people that law deters are the people who are responsible enough to make good decisions and not use their firearms while impaired in the first place.

“No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.”
–Thomas Jefferson

Share

Blue Bloods

I like the show Blue Bloods. I’ve had some issues with some of the things depicted and I’ve talked about at least one of them on this blog, but overall I think the show is very well done.

Yesterday there was an article about the show in the American Conservative:

CBS’s Blue Bloods remains an unexplained anomaly. Now in its improbable eleventh season, a television show less suited to the ruling zeitgeist can hardly be imagined.

This post was prompted as much by the comments to that piece as the piece itself, but I’ve thought about these kind of things quite a bit over the years.

TV was different when I was growing up. Many of the TV shows portrayed clear cut good vs bad stories rather than the “nuanced” stuff you see now days. There are many times I’m watching a modern show and just can’t get into it because there are no characters that I can like. Even the protagonists are all jerks.

Even many (if not most) of the sitcoms of my youth were centered around a well functioning family dealing with life in an honorable way.

One of the ways I’ve always thought about shows like these is “aspirational”. Blue Bloods is not really intended to depict the way the NYC Chief of Police (a political position appointed by the Mayor) does things, or how cops really are, or even how any real (even very close) nuclear family works, it’s kind of a “wouldn’t it be nice if this is how things were” kind of show.

That’s the kind of show I grew up with…where the good guys were actually good guys and he writers didn’t feel the need to introduce some sort of fatal failing or weakness to make them seem more “relatable”.

Doesn’t mean they’re perfect, they make poor decisions and mistakes just like anyone else, but just like in real life, what makes one honorable hinges as much upon how one handles mistakes as it does on the decisions made in the first place.

I feel that I learned a lot from shows like that, especially in my youth…not about how real humans are, but about how good humans should be. It gave me something to aspire to…hence my classification of this type of show.

In my opinion there is social value in providing these types of shows and lessons to people. I think that in SOME cases it CAN inspire us to better ourselves and become better people.

And I think many people…probably mostly us deplorables from flyover country…think so too. They enjoy shows that depict an idealized version of the world…heck, we live in the nitty gritty of the real world every day, why would we want to have it shoved in our faces as “entertainment” too?

That’s why shows (and movies) like this can be so popular. It’s not the “action” or “cop show” aspects of this that draw people, it’s the obvious integrity and honor of the main cast of characters who strive to do the right thing, even when it can come at a personal cost.

Several people in the comments to the article that sparked this post had a negative view of the show. That’s fine, it’s a matter of personal preference and no one is forcing you to watch a TV show. If you don’t like cops being depicted as good people doing a tough, demanding job to the best of their ability. If you don’t like being shown how to handle interpersonal conflict both firmly and tactfully, if you don’t like being shown how to own up to mistakes and work to correct them with courage, then change the channel. You probably wouldn’t have gotten anything from the example anyway.

Share

Why most “nutritional science” is bunk

Not sure what prompted a primarily political news site like CDN to post this article this morning, but it was there. Here’s the very first line of the article:

What and how much we eat isn’t the only important thing when it comes to healthy nutrition. Timing seems to matter, too.

This is why I ignore the “science” of nutritional health. They constantly contradict themselves and I never know which “science” to believe, so I’ll just stick with the way I was raised and good old common sense. I’ve heard many times that eating several small meals throughout the day is better than eating a couple of large meals. Now they say that’s the exact opposite of true.

Except, note the hedging in the sentence…it “seems to matter”.

For most attention deficient people, that’s about as far as they’d go, or maybe they’d read the first few paragraphs which, although no actual science is cited so it’s basically just the opinion of the author, seems to reinforce the opening sentence.

The first citing of scientific evidence isn’t about human studies, it’s about mice and rats. One might note that mice and rats have a slightly higher metabolism, as well as different dietary habits and needs, than humans…but the author doesn’t.

You have to stick will the article all the way to about paragraph 20 to find any human studies on the topic cited, where you discover:

But the study, published in 2017, found no difference between groups one and two: They lost the same amount of body weight on average (about 7 percent after the six-month dieting phase), and displayed similar measures for risk factors for heart disease and diabetes such as blood levels of cholesterol, sugar or insulin; or the body’s responses to insulin. That the intermittent fasting offered no additional benefits beyond traditional calorie restriction was “pretty disappointing,” says nutrition scientist Courtney Peterson from the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Then there are more mice studies that “proved” the thesis, followed by more human studies that didn’t etc.

It goes on and on with the same pattern. Some really telling statements:

Michelle Harvie of Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust in the UK. One human study published in 2007, she says, even suggested that restricting eating times too much can be bad: In it, people ate all their calories in a single meal between 4 p.m. and 8 p.m. Blood sugar levels rose, and glucose tolerance worsened, both signs of ill health.

and

For Ethan Weiss, a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, who led the study, the findings were disappointing enough to stop the time-restricted-eating regimen he had been following for seven years, he wrote on Twitter.

But then the author promptly ignores the science and doggedly goes right into how we can best enjoy the benefits of the dietary habit he’s just demonstrated works for mice and rats, but not people.

Did he actually read what he just wrote?

Continue reading

Share

Short Selling is a Scam

This is something I’ve thought basically since I was first exposed to the concept of “short selling” stocks. The Gamestop fiasco has really brought this to the forefront. People who lost money, like Nancy Pelosi and the Hedge Fund managers for whom “short selling” is a major part of their business model are trying to imply that the Reddit crew who burned them did something nefarious.

Then, when the trading companies shut down trading in Gamestop and a couple of other stocks because of the Reddit interest, and the servers that the Reddit crew was using to communicate was shut down, it made it abundantly clear that the stock market is only intended to make rich people richer, it’s not intended for the everyday Joes to make any money, because that money comes at the expense of the big guys.

But, hey, none of that would have been possible without the scam known as the “short sale” to begin with. The interesting thing is that I haven’t heard or seen a single place that describes what short selling really is in any kind of accurate way. They use metaphors and dance around it but won’t (or can’t) come right out and say it.

I keep hearing them say that a short sale involves “borrowing” stock to sell, or “making a bet” against a company.

If it was “borrowing” stock to sell, then someone explain to me how they can short sell more shares than exist in the market? Can I borrow two cups of sugar from my neighbor if they only have one to loan?

If they were just “placing bets” on a company, then how can they close out their position before the game is over? When you bet on the Vikings, can you pay off the bookie half-way through the game before it gets any worse?

Those are just metaphors to make it sound less shady than it really is.

A short sale is when an investor…primarily a hedge fund…sells stock they don’t own. It’s as simple as that, and yes, it’s just as shady as it sounds.

They’re basically channeling George C. Parker…”hey buddy, wanna buy the Brooklyn Bridge?”

The problem isn’t that the Reddit crew found a way to beat them at their own game, the problem is that it’s allowed to happen at all. It’s a con, a scam, a grift; and it’s perfectly legal because the people who do it are billionaires who can make the people who regulate the finance world and write the laws millionaires or billionaires too.

And, to make it even worse, the big players in the market like the hedge fund managers are the very people that other investors listen to for advice. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. A hedge fund starts heavily shorting a company, other investors notice and believe it portends disaster for the company, so they start selling, the price drops dramatically and the hedge fund makes more millions or billions.

So…they had to crush a company to do it…you’ve got to break some eggs to make a billion dollar omelet right?

Even worse, they or their minions often go onto the major network TV financial shows and talk down the stocks that they’ve shorted, actively trying to sabotage them to make the share prices go down to support their “short position”. And then use the very result that they caused as further evidence of their unique ability to predict market trends. Rinse, lather, repeat.

So, here’s the scenario:

My neighbor has a pretty decent car that an acquaintance of mine is interested in buying. The car’s not for sale right now…and I don’t own it…but I sell it to my buddy for fair market value with an agreement to deliver it at some future date.

Then, that night, I go over to the neighbor’s house, slash the tires, key the paint and pour sugar in the gas tank.

The next day I commiserate with the neighbor “that’s too bad, it was a decent car…maybe I could fix it back up.” We negotiate and I agree to purchase the car for some amount significantly less than yesterday’s fair market value. As soon as I have the title, I sign it over to my acquaintance who’s already paid me fair market value and I pocket the difference.

Quite a scam, huh.

I’m pretty sure that would be called fraud anywhere outside the financial world; but to billionaire hedge fund managers it’s just another day in the office.

I’m glad they got taken and I hope it continues…but I have a feeling they’ll pass new laws or promulgate new regulations to protect their scam and their fortunes. That’s the way it works.

Share