site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   27403 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 25, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This isn't even close to fraud. It is just basically random speculation by him and banks. Everything is estimates made by people without even 12% knowledge of what reality is. These cases shouldn't be legal because they are treating art like a science. Its basically punishing a person extra above the bet they wagered just because. "Oh you put $500 on the Bills to beat the Redskins and Jim Kelly lost again on a fluke field goal, well actually we are taking another $2500 from you because reasons."

It is just basically random speculation by him and banks.

First of all, just by him. The banks (and other business partners) are the ones being defrauded. That's sort of the point.

Second, if it were random speculation, his estimates would be under the true value as often as they were over the true value.

Do you think that's true?

It's actually pretty easy to notice random noise, it tends to follow a well-defined distribution.

When every number over decades comes out heavily biased in the same direction, the direction that benefits you and hurts the people you're dealing with, that's not random noise. That's a pattern of misdirection.

Which is what this case is about.

The banks (and other business partners) are the ones being defrauded. That's sort of the point.

None of them alleged that during the course of business. They all got paid. The numbers were arbitrary.

Second, if it were random speculation, his estimates would be under the true value as often as they were over the true value.

Random was the wrong word. The right word is, self serving normal stuff that businesses do and tax people have to go along with 99.99999999% of the time or the state's economy collapses.

None of them alleged that during the course of business. They all got paid.

Didn't he brag about how often he files bankruptcy to get out of debts? Haven't his companies filed for bankruptcies more often than anyone else's in the US? Haven't there been hundreds of stories about his organizations not paying their bills and obligations?

I haven't gone over all the statements in the case to sort out the specific claims and charges on this particular valuation, but the idea that everyone got paid and no one was hurt by these practices feels leaves me skeptical.

However, part of the reason I'm not investigating that in more depth is because it doesn't matter; you can in fact be defrauded even if you don't lose money. If that sounds weird, remember that all of finance is about the expected value of an investment.

If Trump overstated the worth and stability of his holdings, then any loans he took out were riskier than the banks thought. The expected value of those loans was lower than the banks thought, and if they'd known the truth they might not have made those deals, or might have charged higher interest to compensate (which is a material loss even if the loans were paid back).

Drunk driving is illegal even if you don't hit someone, because it increases the chances you will hit someone. Similarly, lying about how risky it is to make a loan to you is fraud, even if you manage to pay back that particular loan.

The right word is, self serving normal stuff that businesses do and tax people have to go along with 99.99999999% of the time or the state's economy collapses.

Indeed, many things are both illegal and common, and enforcement of pretty much all crimes is spotty and arbitrary at best. That's a sad state of affairs and I think we should solve it with fewer laws; nonetheless, this is not a good reason to decry the law being enforced correctly one time, unless you decry it all the other times too (isolated demands for rigor etc).

That said, there's still such a thing as matter of degree; this was a very long pattern of very big lies on very big deals, a pretty big outlier from the common range for this type of thing.

Again, I agree that it's common to round your $146k income up to $150k when applying for a mortgage. This was a lot bigger than that.

Did you even read the document?

It contains a long list of dramatic, knowing exaggerations. The square footage of his apartment is not a bet. The outside valuations were not bets. He hired appraisers, got their assessments, then lied about the results when it came time to fish for loans. How is that a bet?

I guarantee you that the various appraisers cited in this case know more about the “reality” of these properties than you or anyone else who has become a sudden real estate expert.

I very much doubt there is anything like an expert in unique property values.

Funny, I’m seeing quite a few chiming in on how much MAL is totally worth.

If your defense of Trump is that he made factual claims to secure loans based not on facts, but rather "random speculation," then it seens to me that, with friends like you, who needs enemies?

Pretty sure his friends are all the banks that got paid back because he did a normal business thing that they also do and NY state law is just stupid and as applied to this case would, if applied everywhere, would turn NY State into 2009 Greece.

So claiming his Trump Tower apartment was 3 times bigger than it is was just random speculation?

To me, that is the fraud and not the estimates. The issue is since the judge went all crazy on the valuations I don’t know if the rest of the factual record is accurate and don’t really have the inclination to review the record. I’ll just wait for the appeals and see what happens.

The factual record in this example is accurate. The Judge accurately cited a real valuation by the Palm County assessor.

You may think that the judge is playing rhetorical games to exaggerate their case, but that's a rhetorical issue. The Judge did not representing matters of fact in any way in this example, so there's no reason this should make you doubt other matters of fact cited throughout the ruling.

But that’s the whole thing — a validation by an assessor isn’t a fmv assessment. It would be akin to the judge stating the value of the company is based off of net equity in a balance sheet.

If that were the only factor in her judgement on the matter, yes.

But it's one sentence out of several paragraphs of the ruling on that matter, which is itself just a summary/reference to many many more pages of evidence, filings, and proceedings.

Where’d the judge go crazy?

He’s citing appraisals from a variety of firms, retained by everyone from Trump to the banks. Then he concludes, yeah, Trump’s guys had these appraisals when they made statements to the contrary. I don’t think he made up any numbers himself.

The existence of these appraisals is factual. Their contents are public record; I don’t think the plaintiff was lying about them. Are you arguing that, if the appraisals were so unrealistically low, lying about their contents was legally correct?

Citing a tax assessors valuation is going crazy because tax assessors aren’t really based on FMV

If you’re throwing out those…what do you think the appeal is supposed to turn up?

This ground has been trod. Exhaustively, judging by the specific sanctions applied to defendant’s counsel. The judge found it unconvincing, perhaps because several of the appraisals were not tax assessments. At least one specifically calls out FMV.

I can’t help but feel like an appeal could confirm all the same things, address your complaint specifically, and you’d turn around and mine for another factoid that favors Trump.

You can feel that way. Kind of a weird thing to say given that I’ve noted there does seem to be potential fraud here (and have said I believe he is guilty on the documents case). But yeah I’m just a mindless Trump fan boy.

Real estate square footages are so often exaggerated

I’ve noticed that rental units from a professional complex always seem small compared to an identical unit rented by an owner in a condo building.

There are some reasons how sq footage can be counted different. You can measure every room and get a number (excludes the carpentry work) or just measure what it would be as raw space. Commercial has even more leeway on counting space (outside hallways to offices I believe can be counted differently).

Care to elaborate?

I did see Beckman v Wells Fargo, where the broker advertised twice as much lakefront as the property really had. They ended up protected from liability because they relied on county and bank records.

If you can show me where a suit was dismissed for the broker claiming square footage was “subjective,” as the Trump team attempted, I’d love to see it.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats