Business, Economics, and Taxes: Capitalism. Yay? >=(

[Drew S.]

Guy on Fox News right now: ‘moral hazard’ to pay off student loans, because the last thing we want is people pursuing education. He also said that if a $1400 stimulus payment makes a difference in your life you were screwed anyway. Where do they find these nut jobs?

[St. Clown]

Guy on Fox News right now: ‘moral hazard’ to pay off student loans, because the last thing we want is people pursuing education. He also said that if a $1400 stimulus payment makes a difference in your life you were screwed anyway. Where do they find these nut jobs?

Moral hazard is actually the correct term. If people think that they can have their debt erased when the next wave of stimulus comes through, that could create a situation where they take on more debt than they otherwise would need. So if the student needed $15k for tuition this year, s/he may take out $25k with the hopes that either the whole debt is erased, or enough of the debt is erased that the student can then still afford to pay off the remainder. It's not the pursuit of education that's the moral hazard, it's how people treat the debt process that creates the moral hazard.

[BassAle]

Moral hazard is actually the correct term. If people think that they can have their debt erased when the next wave of stimulus comes through, that could create a situation where they take on more debt than they otherwise would need. So if the student needed $15k for tuition this year, s/he may take out $25k with the hopes that either the whole debt is erased, or enough of the debt is erased that the student can then still afford to pay off the remainder. It's not the pursuit of education that's the moral hazard, it's how people treat the debt process that creates the moral hazard.

I'm okay will some debt elimination, but is it wrong that I want to specifically exclude one of my former college housemates? When he was an undergrad he'd take out the maximum amount of student loans and spend them on things like video games, CDs, DVDs, stereo equipment, etc in addition to his actual living and educational expenses. Later, worked on his PhD for a decade, and probably took out some loans in addition to his research stipend (and certainly accrued interest during that time). He eventually gave up on the PhD and took a job as a software engineer at a large biotech company.

[Drew S.]

Moral hazard is actually the correct term. If people think that they can have their debt erased when the next wave of stimulus comes through, that could create a situation where they take on more debt than they otherwise would need. So if the student needed $15k for tuition this year, s/he may take out $25k with the hopes that either the whole debt is erased, or enough of the debt is erased that the student can then still afford to pay off the remainder. It's not the pursuit of education that's the moral hazard, it's how people treat the debt process that creates the moral hazard.

Maybe I’m wrong about this but I thought you could only borrow what you owe? I understand moral hazard but don’t think it is really applicable when it comes to education.

[Fighting Sioux 23]

The other problem that's going to complicate the damages part of at least one of the cases is this. Smartmatic has sued Fox, but Dominion has also sued, I believe. Doesn't Dominion make the machine and Smartmatic make the software that runs the machine?

So Smartmatic is going to have to show that machine makers, like Dominion, aren't buying their software anymore. Well, Dominion can't come in and say that they won't buy the software because of the allegations of fraud made by Fox. Dominion itself is claiming the story is a bunch of hooey.

I believe Dominion has sued Rudy Giuliani (and may sue Fox, MyPillow dude, and others?). A link to the lawsuit is below, which I just read and suggest you do the same. Based on the lawsuit, it looks like Dominion has both machines and software. The lawsuit also makes pretty clear that there are going to be some big damages:

2.Dominion was founded for the purpose of creating a fully auditable paper-based vote system that would empower people with disabilities to vote independently on verifiable paper ballots. As it grew, Dominion developed technology to solve many of the technical and voter-intent issues that came to light as a result of the 2000 election. Its systems are certified under standards promulgated by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (“EAC”), reviewed and tested by independent testing laboratories accredited by the EAC, and were designed to be auditable and include a paper ballot backup to verify results.

129.Dominion is a for-profit company that provides local election officials with tools they can use to run elections. It generates revenue by selling voting technology services to elected officials from both political parties. It contracts with state and local governments to provide its voting systems and services in a majority of states across the country. Those contracts are typically multi-year contracts and range from tens of thousands of dollars to over a hundred million dollars, depending on the jurisdiction and scope of the contract. Given the nature of the U.S. election system and the voting services industry, Dominion’s contracts have historically been long term with high renewal rates. In 2020, state and local election officials and bipartisan poll workers in 28 “red” and “blue” states administered their elections by using Dominion’s tabulation devices to count paper ballots.

131.Just one day after Giuliani’s and Powell’s Washington, D.C. press conference, Arizona state Congressman Warren Peterson tweeted, “I’m drafting legislation to ban the use of Dominion software and equipment from the state of Arizona. My constituents do not trust it..."

132.Similarly, since the viral disinformation campaign began, state legislators in various states in which Dominion has contracts—including Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, and Pennsylvania—have stated their intent to review and reassess those contracts.

135.As illustrated in the examples above, as a result of the viral disinformation campaign, Dominion has been unfairly subjected to the hatred, contempt, and distrust of tens of millions of American voters,and the elected officials who are Dominion’s actual and potential customers have received emails, letters, and calls from their constituents demanding that they avoid contracting with Dominion or using Dominion machines. As a result, elected officials, insurers, and potential investorshavebeen deterred from dealing with Dominion, putting Dominion’s contracts in more than two dozen states and hundreds of counties and municipalities in jeopardy and significantly hampering Dominion’s ability to win new contracts. Based on Dominion’s historic financial track record, contract pipeline, retention and renewal rates, and new business capture rates, as well as the nature, severity, pervasiveness, and permanence of the viral disinformation campaign, current projections show lost profits of $200 million over the next five years, when reduced to present value. In addition, the viral disinformation campaign has irreparably damaged Dominion’s reputation and destroyed the resale value of a business that was worth between $450 million and $500 million before the viral disinformation campaign.

They ask for ~$650m in actual/compensatory damages and ~$650m in exemplaries. Based on the ask, I'm guessing D.C. law limits exemplaries to a 1:1 ratio.

Dominion v. Giuliani Complaint.pdf | Powered by Box

[burd]

The other problem that's going to complicate the damages part of at least one of the cases is this. Smartmatic has sued Fox, but Dominion has also sued, I believe. Doesn't Dominion make the machine and Smartmatic make the software that runs the machine?

So Smartmatic is going to have to show that machine makers, like Dominion, aren't buying their software anymore. Well, Dominion can't come in and say that they won't buy the software because of the allegations of fraud made by Fox. Dominion itself is claiming the story is a bunch of hooey.

Interesting point, but plaintiff has a duty to mitigate its damages. Can't Dominion argue that they had no choice but to get their software elsewhere not because Smartmatic's was defective but because the Defendants' lies made machines supported by Smartmatic software less marketable.

If a major insurance company consistently but falsely claimed that Ford 150s were a safety risk due in part to the engines Ford sold them with (assume they weren't made by Ford), and there was sufficient evidence those allegations led to a drop in sales, Ford would probably be forced to go to a different engine manufacturer, at least until the effects of the defamatory statements were cured.

[BassAle]

Maybe I’m wrong about this but I thought you could only borrow what you owe? I understand moral hazard but don’t think it is really applicable when it comes to education.

you can borrow “living expenses”. I’ve seen people borrow way more than they needed and then blow the money

[SJHovey]

I believe Dominion has sued Rudy Giuliani (and may sue Fox, MyPillow dude, and others?). A link to the lawsuit is below, which I just read and suggest you do the same. Based on the lawsuit, it looks like Dominion has both machines and software. The lawsuit also makes pretty clear that there are going to be some big damages:











They ask for ~$650m in actual/compensatory damages and ~$650m in exemplaries. Based on the ask, I'm guessing D.C. law limits exemplaries to a 1:1 ratio.

Dominion v. Giuliani Complaint.pdf | Powered by Box

Well, Smartmatic has also sued. I think they're the ones asking for $2.7 billion from Fox, or something.

Look, I really don't care what they ask for in their Complaint. I asked for a car for Christmas when I was 10. I'm still waiting.

There are a million legal hurdles for Smartmatic and/or Dominion to overcome, especially with media companies like Fox. In fact, I think Fox has already moved to dismiss based upon various theories.

Smart money says these cases will be resolved by settlement, probably for no more than Gretchen Carlson tittie grabbing money, with is light years away from $1.3 or $2.7 billion.

[LynahFan]

I asked for a car for Christmas when I was 10. I'm still waiting.

In fact, I think Fox has already moved to dismiss based upon various theories.

So you asked for a car and Fox asked for a pony. I don't ever remember hearing of a lawsuit where a competent defense team did NOT ask for immediate dismissal.

Only time will tell....

[BassAle]

who else imagines Hovey is a habitual mansplainer?

[SJHovey]

So you asked for a car and Fox asked for a pony. I don't ever remember hearing of a lawsuit where a competent defense team did NOT ask for immediate dismissal.

Only time will tell....

Yeah, I don't expect any cases will be dismissed right out of the gate.

But defamation cases are a nasty affair, especially when you are dealing with a media defendant. Media members and companies are rightfully afforded great protection. There are questions relating to whether the plaintiffs are "public figures." There are questions relating to whether the statements are really statements of fact, or statements of opinion. Then Fox will claim they are reporting what Giuliani and the others were arguing in court and out of it, which is certainly newsworthy. The individuals, who are lawyers, will claim that their statements and arguments in court are privileged and not subject to defamation claims, and their statements to the press were simply a recitation of their privileged court arguments.

Then you can get into the whole reputation problem. When someone sues for defamation, the facts of the case essentially become, "how dirty are you?" So every piece of crap, every lawsuit, every claim by a former employee, etc..., that could have tarnished these companies reputations will be publicly aired.

Then, and only then, do we get to the question of damages, which FS23 and I will just have to agree to disagree on. I think they are going to have to prove actual damages if they want to get anything beyond that, because the courthouse steps are littered with defamation cases where plaintiffs proved little or no actual damages but got a huge award based upon some sort of harm to their reputation, only to see appeals courts strip it all away.

[Handyman]

Moral hazard is actually the correct term. If people think that they can have their debt erased when the next wave of stimulus comes through, that could create a situation where they take on more debt than they otherwise would need. So if the student needed $15k for tuition this year, s/he may take out $25k with the hopes that either the whole debt is erased, or enough of the debt is erased that the student can then still afford to pay off the remainder. It's not the pursuit of education that's the moral hazard, it's how people treat the debt process that creates the moral hazard.

Its the right term but it is BS. The moral hazard is never an issue when we bail out the banks or other companies. It is just a buzz word now that people use trying to sound like they care.

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Yeah, I don't expect any cases will be dismissed right out of the gate.

But defamation cases are a nasty affair, especially when you are dealing with a media defendant. Media members and companies are rightfully afforded great protection. There are questions relating to whether the plaintiffs are "public figures." There are questions relating to whether the statements are really statements of fact, or statements of opinion. Then Fox will claim they are reporting what Giuliani and the others were arguing in court and out of it, which is certainly newsworthy. The individuals, who are lawyers, will claim that their statements and arguments in court are privileged and not subject to defamation claims, and their statements to the press were simply a recitation of their privileged court arguments.

Then you can get into the whole reputation problem. When someone sues for defamation, the facts of the case essentially become, "how dirty are you?" So every piece of crap, every lawsuit, every claim by a former employee, etc..., that could have tarnished these companies reputations will be publicly aired.

Then, and only then, do we get to the question of damages, which FS23 and I will just have to agree to disagree on. I think they are going to have to prove actual damages if they want to get anything beyond that, because the courthouse steps are littered with defamation cases where plaintiffs proved little or no actual damages but got a huge award based upon some sort of harm to their reputation, only to see appeals courts strip it all away.

I'll ask again SJHovey...not sure how many defamation cases you have been involved in, or litigated, but I would be interested in what experience you have with defamation claims and what jurisdictions those occurred in?

[Handyman]

Yeah, I don't expect any cases will be dismissed right out of the gate.

But defamation cases are a nasty affair, especially when you are dealing with a media defendant. Media members and companies are rightfully afforded great protection. There are questions relating to whether the plaintiffs are "public figures." There are questions relating to whether the statements are really statements of fact, or statements of opinion. Then Fox will claim they are reporting what Giuliani and the others were arguing in court and out of it, which is certainly newsworthy. The individuals, who are lawyers, will claim that their statements and arguments in court are privileged and not subject to defamation claims, and their statements to the press were simply a recitation of their privileged court arguments.

Then you can get into the whole reputation problem. When someone sues for defamation, the facts of the case essentially become, "how dirty are you?" So every piece of crap, every lawsuit, every claim by a former employee, etc..., that could have tarnished these companies reputations will be publicly aired.

Then, and only then, do we get to the question of damages, which FS23 and I will just have to agree to disagree on. I think they are going to have to prove actual damages if they want to get anything beyond that, because the courthouse steps are littered with defamation cases where plaintiffs proved little or no actual damages but got a huge award based upon some sort of harm to their reputation, only to see appeals courts strip it all away.

You understand that the people arguing with you (not me but FS23) probably know more about it than you do right? Your posts seem to suggest otherwise...

[St. Clown]

Its the right term but it is BS. The moral hazard is never an issue when we bail out the banks or other companies. It is just a buzz word now that people use trying to sound like they care.

No, it's a buzzword for the politicians. It's been used in academia for as long as I can remember. Moral hazard was discussed at length in my economics courses, talking about airline bailouts. (Northwest Airlines was the most recent example at that time.)