The Huffington Post reports that Elizabeth Magner, a federal judge in Louisiana, hit Wells Fargo with $3.1 million in punitive damages for gouging a New Orleans man for $24,000 in illegal fees on his mortgage, and then putting the full weight of its legal resources on him to discourage a lawsuit (emphasis mine)
In the most recent opinion, Magner describes Wells Fargo’s litigation tactics, which involved filing dozens of briefs, motions and other filings that slowed down the proceedings to a snail’s pace, as “particularly vexing.” The tactics suggest that any other borrower who might wish to contest a fee or charge would find a legal challenge to the bank simply too burdensome.
And yet, Magner writes, it is only through litigation that the abuses can be uncovered. Calling Wells Fargo’s conduct “clandestine,” Magner wrote that the bank refused to communicate with Jones even as it was misdirecting payments for improper purposes.
“Only through litigation was this practice discovered,” Magner writes. “Wells Fargo admitted to the same practices for all other loans in bankruptcy or default. As a result, it is unlikely that most debtors will be able to discern problems with their accounts without extensive discovery.”
I hope somebody with subpoena power is reading that.
— You’ve heard the canard about how only a little more than half of the population pays (federal income) taxes, which is meant to show how half of us are lazy welfare queens or something. Never mind that almost everybody pays other major forms of taxation: state, local, payroll, gas tax, etc.
But this Hamilton Project chart shows another way that stat is misleading: Most of the people who don’t pay federal income taxes are actually old and retired or young and in college
But during middle age, almost all workers face a tax burden. When looking at those in middle-age, 84 percent faced a net payroll and income tax bill in 2007. This general theme also holds true for low-income households: even households that receive the child-related EITC generally only receive it temporarily, usually when their children are young. On net, even these families face a positive tax bill over time (Dowd and Horowitz 2008).
Furthermore, rising unemployment during the Great Recession has meant that the proportion of American families paying no federal taxes is unusually large today. Unemployed workers without incomes naturally don’t face tax liabilities. But as they find jobs and rejoin the labor force, they will once again contribute to the federal system. Indeed, some of the trends we see today are less illustrative of an unfair tax advantage for the poor; rather, the trends indicate the existence of a group of unfortunate families who have found themselves affected by hard times. And young people today have been particularly hard hit: many are unemployed or weathering the storm in graduate schools, meaning that they are, thus, not paying taxes. When looking more specifically at middle-aged workers with jobs, 96 percent paid federal income or payroll taxes.
— The Wall Street Journal reports on what kind of private information you’re giving up in exchange for those Facebook apps that ask questions like “Is your friend’s butt cute?” (the WSJ finds that developer liked to learn about you and your friends’ sexual preferences until the paper started asking questions).
Most interesting is that at least some of these apps know they’re likely to be flashes in the pan at best and are looking to warehouse your personal information and that of your friends to cash in:
By virtue of its size and user base of 800-million-plus people, Facebook is at the heart of the personal data economy. Popular apps can quickly go “viral” there and gain millions of users—but can also flame out just as quickly. This explains why some apps seek to cash in by gathering as much data as possible and hoping to find ways to make money from it.
- 1
- 2

Call it "data strip-mining."
Then call it "data hoarding."
It might be valuable some day!
And why not have an economy in which a few of us make money by tricking the rest of us into giving them true information about ourselves? There's always more data to mine, so it should be totally sustainable, right?
Anyway, it's much more workable than flipping each other houses.
#1 Posted by Edward Ericson Jr., CJR on Tue 10 Apr 2012 at 11:34 AM
You know what you never see in a Chittumistic analysis of this taxation issue?
The word "credit".
Ryan blithers on about the taxes the "poor" people pay... But he never mentions the credits these people receive...
This is the curious calculus of Thimbilistic Chittumism... Debits count, but credits don't.
#2 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 13 Apr 2012 at 12:37 AM
Except, when you do punch in the credits and calculate the effective tax rate, Americans live in a pretty much flat tax system:
http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2012/04/who_pays_taxes_in_america.php
So the injustice of paying more taxes in a system where the rich profit WAY more (and you'll never find the word subsidy or corporate tax credit in a padikiller analysis) is not so injust.
Especially when we consider the economy is more productive when taxes on the rich are higher.
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=6000
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 13 Apr 2012 at 12:00 PM
This is why America can't have nice things.
We need to learn how to tell this story.
#4 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 13 Apr 2012 at 12:21 PM
Speaking of telling the story, on the subject of Wells Fargo and MERS here's an interesting story.
"The single most significant change in the politics of cyberspace is the coming of age of this simple idea: The code is law. The architectures of cyberspace are as important as the law in defining and defeating the liberties of the Net....
I’d like, respectfully, suggest that Lessig has the right meme, but the wrong content backing up the meme. As I hope to show, code is indeed law — and, increasingly, literally — but not in the clean, elegant, hip, candy-colored (and triumphal) world of “the Valley” and the Internet, but in the world of huge honkin’ crufty proprietary information systems run by major corporations. Especially those used by banksters (including MERS and LPS).
Is the foreclosure crisis a law enforcement crisis?
[Short answer] Yes...
Now let’s look at law and code together. Here’s an extract from The Honorable Elizabeth W. Magner’s recent decision busting Wells Fargo [PDF], In Re Jones. It starts:
In this case, Wells Fargo testified that every home mortgage loan was administered by its proprietary computer software.
That is, code...
First, this arrangement of Magner’s text makes one possible “theory of the case” clear: The incentives for fraud — the costs, the fees, and the interest — are all coded green, and are all in column B; the world of Wells Fargo’s proprietary information system. Follow the rents. Every time Wells makes a “mistake,” Wells makes money! After mistakes were incentivized, mistakes were made! (Could Wells Fargo’s home mortgage loan administation system actually have been a profit center?)...
Proprietary information systems like Wells Fargo’s do not magically appear. These systems are not purchased in shrink-wrapped boxes. They are custom-coded and glued together with immense effort by people in cubes, and they cost money. Lots of money. They are also risky to develop. For these reasons, corporations establish formal processes for systems development, deployment, and maintenance of information systems. These processes are heavy-weight...
What if the appropiate frame were not law enforcement, but jurisprudence? That is, what if the stakes were not “the rule of law,” but the nature of law itself, and hence the nature of the State?
Let’s take another look at Table I. Suppose I were a bankster, or a bankster’s lawyer, and I liked the green stuff in column B and wanted to keep what I’ve taken and take more of it. I might see Magner’s decision as a sort of “one from column A, one from column B” mish-mash that prevents me from doing God’s work. So why not get rid of that Column A entirely? Why not make code, law? That’s a clean solution, since all those pesky accountability issues go away. “Incorrect amortization” would become “incorrect amortization,” “misapplication of payments,” “misapplication of payments,” and so on and so forth. After all, if I were an oligarch, that’s exactly the kind of system I would want, right? Rent extraction without accountability...
What’s happened is that, almost overnight, we’ve switched from democracy in real-property recording to oligarchy in real-property recording. There was no court case behind this, no statute from Congress or the state legislatures. It was accomplished in a private corporate decision. The banks just did it.
With MERS, code replaced law. Going forward, code is law...
Step one: Code the system. Step two: Rewrite the law to match the code, and grant immunity. It is, after all, better to ask for forgiveness than permission.
Code is law."
#5 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 13 Apr 2012 at 02:03 PM
Let's tie this into our thread on republican extremes and the authortarian culture because, in a sense, "code is law" is not a private sector only thing.
In the 1990's, I never believed a presidential election could be stolen, a war could be started on domestic propaganda, torture could be justified, surveillance of citizens could be tolerated, armies could be privatized, industry lobbyists appointed in charge of industry police, and habeus corpus could be suspended.
I was naive, but I believed in the obstructions of law and the officers which carried them out would arrest corruptive trends before they became entrenched.
And the case against the Bush administration was clear:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/12/0082303
But elites protected elites and the people did not march into the streets to demand justice and the Democratic president and party insisted that we don't look back, that we look forward.
And what that did is it made code law. The torture, surveillance, law breaking, all got swept under a carpet of immunity agreements for telecoms and a desire for comity in transition from illegitimate administration to legitimate. Obama has not undone many of Bush's actions and has exceeded him in ways on national security.
The lack of penalty for violation has turned law into a plastic thing, where the behaviors which elites deem acceptable determine the enforceability and retroactive reality of law.
Code is law. In the 1990's I was unaware of this fact.
#6 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 13 Apr 2012 at 04:41 PM
So, the question for the media is why was I unaware?
Because none of this is new. None of this shuld be unknown.
An uninformed population is an unarmed population in the face of ideological warfare.
And yes folks, we're at war and the misinformed side side is armed and dangerous.
#7 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 13 Apr 2012 at 04:53 PM
Thimbles prevaricates: "you'll never find the word subsidy or corporate tax credit in a padikiller analysis"
padikiller responds: BULLSHIT. PURE BULLSHIT.
I have made it extremely clear over the years that ALL gubmint welfare programs - including corporate welfare programs- are ruining this country.
Indeed the converse of Thimble's latest prevarication is true - Thimbilistic Chittumism devotes great energy in lambasting corporate welfare and tax credits, but entirely ignores the welfare to the "poor"...
Like the "head of household" status, the "Earned Income Credit", the child credits, the "Making Work Pay" credit, etc that end up giving nearly half the population a net negative federal tax burden.
#8 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 13 Apr 2012 at 11:56 PM
"padikiller responds: BULLSHIT. PURE BULLSHIT."
Show me a specific. Where in the archives have you attacked specific bank supporting programs or specific corporate subsidies or made any specific complaints about government aid to the powerful other than "GOVERNMENT IS EBIL! BOOGEY BOO!"
Because you sure list the specifics about programs for the poor, in fact that seems to monopolize your interest.
"Indeed the converse of Thimble's latest prevarication is true - Thimbilistic Chittumism devotes great energy in lambasting corporate welfare and tax credits, but entirely ignores the welfare to the "poor""
Yeah, you know why? Because it SUCKS to be poor. It SUCKS to be middle class. WORK is not valued in this country, it is cheap. This is BY DESIGN.
Government should be supporting the poor and the middle class. They should have decent healthcare, schools, labor protections, access to affordable day care, and a dozen other things which the citizens of other societies take for granted. If life sucked a lot more for rich people and sucked a lot less for poor, you'd be building the society towards something instead of tearing it down.
#9 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 16 Apr 2012 at 02:28 PM
Thimbles beats the Commie drum: "Government should be supporting the poor and the middle class. They should have decent healthcare, schools, labor protections, access to affordable day care, and a dozen other things which the citizens of other societies take for granted"
padikiller responds: Like in Cuba? Or in North Korea?
Because the Euro model of doling out free stuff to citizens is falling apart.
As Margaret Thatcher so aptly put, the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money to spend. Like in Greece, France, Spain and Portugal. The days of free money from the Gubmint are numbered.
When you say of the "poor" people that "they should have" things... What you mean is "somebody else should give" them things. People who produce should be compelled to surrender property or to be enslaved to benefit the people who mooch.
Now THERE'S a recipe for societal success, Thimbles!
This Marxist stupidity has never worked anywhere in the Universe it has ever been attempted. PERIOD.
It leads to misery, famine, oppression and filth in every instance.
Government should indeed support the "poor" and the middle class - by letting businesses prosper and by limiting intervention into the free market only to the extent necessary to keep markets competitive and to protect public health and safety.
What you newfangled lefties don't want to hear is that the only way to improve the condition of the "poor" is to get them to do more work.
STOP using "other people's money" to dole out Snickers Bars to obese welfare recipients. STOP paying unwed mothers to procreate. STOP paying people not to work. STOP issuing EBT cards to buy crack and pay bail bondsmen.
START demanding able-bodied adults do work (or be locked up, their choice).
Only WORK will produce wealth and sustain an economy. So reward WORK.
It ain't complicated.
#10 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 16 Apr 2012 at 03:10 PM
"Show me a specific. Where in the archives have you attacked specific bank supporting programs or specific corporate subsidies or made any specific complaints about government aid to the powerful other than "GOVERNMENT IS EBIL! BOOGEY BOO!""
What? No specifics? No worries, I didn't expect any.
I expected a bunch of garbage about WORK and MARX and all sorts of other stuff that you folks like to bring up because you don't want to raise the value of work and you don't want labor to demand their deserved share of production's fruits. You're a Cheap Labor Conservative.
And that's why you defend corporations and the rich and wealthy slivers of US population because you believe that is the natural order of things.
This is why you call women, who want coverage for medication specific to their needs, sluts.
This is why you decry specific programs and credits for the poor and stay silent on the subject of the rich.
This is why your answer to the collapse of labor and the heretical idea of raising the minimum wage is "Bad jobs at bad wages are better than no jobs at all."
You are a believer in cheap labor:
"You see, cheap-labor conservatives are defenders of corporate America – whose fortunes depend on labor. The larger the labor supply, the cheaper it is. The more desperately you need a job, the cheaper you'll work, and the more power those "corporate lords" have over you. If you are a wealthy elite – or a "wannabe" like most dittoheads – your wealth, power and privilege is enhanced by a labor pool, forced to work cheap.
Don't believe me. Well, let's apply this principle, and see how many right-wing positions become instantly understandable.
Cheap-labor conservatives don't like social spending or our "safety net". Why. Because when you're unemployed and desperate, corporations can pay you whatever they feel like – which is inevitably next to nothing. You see, they want you "over a barrel" and in a position to "work cheap or starve".
Cheap-labor conservatives don't like the minimum wage, or other improvements in wages and working conditions. Why. These reforms undo all of their efforts to keep you "over a barrel".
Cheap-labor conservatives like "free trade", NAFTA, GATT, etc. Why. Because there is a huge supply of desperately poor people in the third world, who are "over a barrel", and will work cheap.
Cheap-labor conservatives oppose a woman's right to choose. Why. Unwanted children are an economic burden that put poor women "over a barrel", forcing them to work cheap.
Cheap-labor conservatives don't like unions. Why. Because when labor "sticks together", wages go up. That's why workers unionize. Seems workers don't like being "over a barrel".
Cheap-labor conservatives constantly bray about "morality", "virtue", "respect for authority", "hard work" and other "values". Why. So they can blame your being "over a barrel" on your own "immorality", lack of "values" and "poor choices".
Cheap-labor conservatives encourage racism, misogyny, homophobia and other forms of bigotry. Why? Bigotry among wage earners distracts them, and keeps them from recognizing their common interests as wage earners."
That's the difference between us, While the left believes in equality, democracy, social justice and genuine liberty, the right believes in the wealth, power and privilege of a corporate neo-feudal elite.
I believe in rewarding work, increasing wages, and stimulating domestic demand like the countries in the "left of center" governments in the Krugman link above. You believe in cheap labor and rich lawlessness. How has that model worked out?
#11 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 16 Apr 2012 at 06:13 PM
Speaking of tax rates:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/a-rich-guys-case-for-much-higher-taxes/2012/04/17/gIQA384rNT_blog.html
"In a recent paper, economists Emmanuel Saez, Thomas Piketty and Peter Diamond looked closely at the evidence on high-income taxation. “The question we were asking is, where is the point where the Laffer curve” — which tries to estimate when higher taxes lead to less revenue, because of either evasion or slower growth — “hits the maximum revenue,” says Diamond, who won the 2011 Nobel prize in economics. “You don’t want to be beyond that. But we argue you would like to be fairly close to that. Taking revenue from people making $1.2 million is better than taking it from other groups.”
The answer, they find, is somewhere between 50 and 70 percent. Above that, you begin to lose more revenue than you raise. “So instead of the current Washington fight between Bush and Clinton tax rates, let’s think of the fight being between the Johnson/Ford/Carter tax rates and the tax rate we had after Reagan’s initial cut,” Diamond says, with a laugh."
#12 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 17 Apr 2012 at 04:09 PM