#scam advisor

[scopophilic1997]

scopOphilic_micromessaging_1030 - scopOphilic1997 presents a new micro-messaging series: small, subtle, and often unintentional messages we send and receive verbally and non-verbally.

[riacte]

so hey guys i finished dungeon meshi yesterday and i'm still thinking about it

[askthechronoverse]

Oh dear. I've never seen the ask system do something like this. I did read your inquiry and our systems are reporting you as a scam artist...

I'm sorry but... that's the lowest thing you can do.

You've taken advantage of the plight of a group of people in the Land of the Man Upstairs who genuinely need the help and are using the generosity of the people who ask us questions and read our blog to line your pockets or the pockets of your employers. That is absolutely shameful. I would reassess your life decisions very carefully.

As for those watching us in the Land of the Man Upstairs: We do recommend providing assistance to those that the system has reported to be a scam artist is pretending to be. There are people in that area that do need your help. That do need your kindness and generosity. Please make sure that any donations you make are to verified funding efforts or charities that are working to provide humanitarian aid, such as esims for Gaza, Doctors Without Borders, or UNRWA.

Please don't fall for traps like this. Your generosity is a gift and you want to use that gift to benefit those who are in current danger.

[jacquesthepigeon]

Bare minimum: Hire a French-Chinese person to coordinate with for lore and do actual research into lore and magic. What they actually did: Idk, just throw whatever sticks to the wall in there and then just say it's Chinese. But the temple is in Tibet, I'm sure that won't ruffle any feathers. Oh and the Japanese flag is Rising Sun.

Next step: Block anyone upset about how they treat POC on social media

[robotpussy]

everytime ppl need more money it's always "get a second job" or start scamming people 🤦🏾‍♀️🤦🏾‍♀️

[hylass]

scuttling like a little rat to another floors kitchen to bum some defense celebration cake and ran into my labmate doing the exact same thing <3

[arunganguly6]

Unveiling The Truth Behind Arun Ganguly Scam

In the tumultuous landscape of modern business, controversies often surface, casting shadows of doubt and skepticism. The Arun Ganguly Scam is one such example, where claims have obfuscated the standing of a prominent figure. Notwithstanding, digging further into the matter uncovers a more nuanced story, testing the overarching account and revealing insight into urgent viewpoints that request consideration.

Here Are Some Key Points To Consider About Arun Ganguly Scam

Between all these rumors of Arun Ganguly fraud here are a few things seeking our attention. Read through the below pointers to understand it better.

The Rise Of Arun Ganguly

Arun Ganguly's process is a demonstration of the force of entrepreneurial brilliance and immovable assurance. Rising up out of humble starting points, he left on an exceptional journey to cut out his specialty in the serious universe of business. Furnished with only a vision and sheer grit, Ganguly bravely outlined his course, exploring through the fierce waters of vulnerability and difficulty. With every snag experienced, he arose more grounded and more undaunted, declining to be discouraged by the overwhelming difficulties that lay ahead. Through his tenacious quest for greatness, Ganguly made progress as well as made a permanent imprint on the landscape of industry. His creative methodology and strong drives upset customary standards, introducing another time of conceivable outcomes. From weighty advancements to problematic plans of action, Ganguly's impact resounded across areas, changing enterprises and molding the fate of trade.

The Allegations Unveiled

As murmurs of trickery and fraud twirled around him, Arun Ganguly was unexpectedly pushed into the eye of a raging tempest of debate. Reports arose, spreading far and wide, alleging his involvement in a scandal that sent shockwaves through the actual foundation of the business world. Accusations mounted, painting a damning image of Ganguly as the mastermind behind a nefarious plan intended to trick and defraud. However, amidst the cacophony of accusations and sensational headlines, a nearer examination reveals an alternate story altogether. Rather than the calculated machinations of a malicious actor, the allegations against Ganguly appear to stem more from misunderstandings and misinterpretations. Strip back the layers of guess, and one finds a narrative overflowing with intricacies and nuances, where truth and discernment intertwine in a tangled trap of uncertainty.

A Man Of Integrity

Regardless of the discussion twirling around him, Arun Ganguly has stayed undaunted in his obligation to transparency and accountability. He has participated completely with examinations, certain that reality will win sooner or later.

The Impact On Trust

The fallout from the Arun Ganguly Scam has reverberated far beyond individual reputations, shaking the foundations of trust in the business community. In an era where trust is currency, rebuilding it requires concerted effort and a commitment to honesty and integrity.

Lessons Learned

As we reflect on the events surrounding the Arun Ganguly Scam, it is essential to glean valuable lessons from the experience. Communication, diligence, and a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths are paramount in safeguarding against similar controversies in the future.

Embracing Dialogue And Understanding

Pushing ahead, moving toward this issue with compassion and liberality is basic. As opposed to capitulating to sentimentality, let us participate in constructive discourse and look for figuring out, spanning partitions and encouraging a culture of trust and collaboration.

[sail-not-drift]

For 48 brief hours I thought I might be able to buy my apartment instead of moving. But alas. I now know how money works.

[businessfinancialgroup]

Safeguard Your Finances: Learn How to Spot and Prevent IRS Scams. Stay informed and protect yourself from fraudulent schemes this tax season. Read our comprehensive blog now!

[cryptonews10]

Crypto News - School Faculty arrest over alleged crypto mine hidden | Cr...

[wonnieaura]

financial knowledge for the girlies 🤍🍓💸

Develop a budget: Creating and sticking to a budget can help you better understand your income and expenses, and learn how to prioritize your spending.

Save regularly: Saving money is crucial for achieving financial stability. You can set up automatic transfers to a savings account so you won't be tempted to spend the money.

Pay off debt: High-interest debt can hinder your financial progress. Make a plan to pay off your debts and focus on high-interest debts first.

Invest wisely: Investing can help your money grow over time. Look for low-cost index funds, which can give you broad exposure to the market at a low cost.

Understand compound interest: Compound interest is the interest you earn on interest. By investing consistently, the power of compound interest can help you build wealth over time.

Research before making big financial decisions: Before making a major decision, such as buying a house or car, research different options and weigh the costs and benefits.

Learn from your mistakes: Every failure or setback can teach you something valuable. Use these experiences to inform your future financial decisions.

Get professional advice: Seek advice from a financial advisor if you're unsure about your financial decisions. They can provide guidance on investments, retirement planning, and tax strategies.

Be aware of scams: Scammers can take advantage of financial illiteracy. Be cautious when someone offers an investment that's too good to be true.

Continuous learning: Financial knowledge is constantly changing, so stay informed by regularly reading financial news, books, and attending classes or webinars.

[bestandfree]

Karz insurance 10 process

Karz insurance 10 process

Karz Insurance Karz Insurance is a full-service insurance company that provides coverage for cars, homes, and businesses. Karz Insurance was founded in 1991 and is based in Omaha, Nebraska. The company has over 700 employees and offers a variety of insurance products, including car, home, and business insurance. Karz Insurance is a member of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners…

[quitepossiblytall]

I’m not voting 3rd party because America’s 3rd party choices are trash. On the merits, they are just not a good choice and I wouldn’t trust any of them to be a better president the Joe Biden.

1)They have not made it on the ballot in enough states to actually win the election. Williamson fully lost the democratic primary to Joe Biden. The people have already spoken.

2) Cornel West is a political hack who is being used by the republicans to syphon votes from Biden. He’s mismanaging his campaign - he spent more money on graphic design than petitions to get on the ballot. He supports republican education policies (google Classic Learning Test. A conservative backed replacement to the ACT and SAT that focuses on “western literature”. It’s supported by DeSantis, if that is any indication of quality).

3) Jill Stein is a millionaire who larps as a activist, while actively lying about the Biden administration and generating wealth (she’s worth 7 million dollars and inherited half a million from her parents) from the very industries she claims to be against (big banks, big oil, military industry, big pharma).

5) Neither Jill Stein nor Cornel West are truly anti-genocide. They’re pro-Putin. Meaning they would allow the genocide of Ukrainians to continue. West wants to fully dismantle NATO, which would put former USSR countries like Estonia, Poland, Latvia, and Lithuania in danger of Russian aggression without NATO protection. Both are a threat to the sovereignty of former Soviet Union countries.

6) All of our presidential candidates this year, aside from Jasmine Sherman are 70+. So, if Biden is too old, so are all of them.

7) Marianne Williamson, one time spiritual advisor to Oprah Winfrey, lost to Biden in the primary. People didn’t vote for her in the primary - full stop. She’s a wacko, who describes AIDS as “angels in Darth Vader suits”. She’s a pseudoscience pedaler and an anti-vaxxer (long before COVID-19), excuse me a “safe-vaxxer”, who once tweeted that the “power of the mind” could save people in the path of hurricanes. She is wrong about both mental and physical health (because pseudoscience), calling clinical depression “a scam”.

[shojoqueendom]

The whole story of the illegal sale of Candy Candy products by Yumiko Igarashi

What is Candy Candy?

Candy Candy is shojo manga that was published between 1975 and 1981 in Nakayoshi magazine. It was written by Kyoko Mizuki (Keiko Nagita) and illustrated by Yumiko Igarashi. It was adapted to anime between 1976 and 1979 with a total of 115 episodes by Toei Animation.

The dramatic story of the sweet and optimistic Candy was an international success and is today an icon of shojo manga and one of the best sellers.

Evidently, the copyright holders are both Mizuki and Igarashi, and the trademark rights holder is Toei Animation.

Beginning of the conflict: Cancellation of the contract with Kodansha

According to Igarashi, her subsequent works at Kodansha didn't achieve significant sales, so the publisher abandoned her.

Candy Candy's views were decreasing over time and Kodansha did nothing. So Igarashi asked Mizuki to cancel her contract with Kodansha, Mizuki chose her friend and they did so on February 26, 1995.

Toei Animation also had a contract with Kodansha for Candy Candy, which automatically expired when Mizuki and Igarashi canceled their contract. To broadcast Candy Candy, Toei Animation had to sign a new contract with Igarashi and Mizuki. Toei Animation and Mizuki tried to contact Igarashi many times for this but were unsuccessful.

Meanwhile, Igarashi was working with Fuji Sankei (now Qualus), through which she was able to offer licenses to many companies to sell Candy Candy products without asking permission from Mizuki or Toei.

The unmasking: Banpresto's purikura

One of these companies was Banpresto Co., Ltd., which develops video games and makes collectible figures. Igarashi lied about creating a new (fictitious) company in Hong Kong with Mizuki and Toei called "Candy Corporation." Igarashi and Banpresto made a "purikura" (Japanese photo booths) contract. Banpresto asked Igarashi many times if Mizuki was aware of this contract, Igarashi always confirmed it. Banpresto considered it rude to ask Mizuki herself to confirm, so they agreed.

So how did they find out what Igarashi was doing? Candy Candy's purikura was set up at the Tokyo Gulliver Store in Matsudo, Chiba Prefecture, which was a large gaming center managed by Banpresto.

Banpresto intended to install its purikura machines throughout the country, including Candy Candy.

Igarashi stated that she accepted the purikura because it was only "a test case" and that she would have no compensation. She said that she was worried that Mizuki would reject the offer because Mizuki didn't like games at all (which Mizuki never said), so she planned to talk to Mizuki later if the test was successful. News of Candy Candy's purikura spread through the media and reached Mizuki in May 1997. Igarashi says that Mizuki told her over the phone that if she had known she wouldn't have refused, and that Igarashi was trying to keep the profits for herself. She said that Mizuki forced her to cancel the purikura event and that she hired a lawyer to sue Igarashi. Mizuki refuted this on her official website. Igarashi stated that she didn't receive any benefit from the purikura because it was only a prototype. Even if it were, purikura isn't free, so benefits were generated.

The problem is that the idea of ​​creating a purikura was Igarashi's, not Banpresto's. Banpresto, upon realizing that they hadn't received permission from Mizuki, removed the purikura and wouldn't move it until the copyright issue was resolved. That's why Mizuki didn't sue Banpresto. Still, Banpresto apologized profusely for being involved in the scam.

Mizuki comments that she wasn't sure about canceling the contract with Kodansha, her husband didn't recommend it, but she still did it and regrets it. Her husband asked the legal advisor who had drawn up the contract, the legal advisor didn't know. Worried, Mizuki and her husband wanted to talk to Igarashi to discuss what they would do with Candy Candy from then on, but Igarashi kept putting off her request, saying that she was busy and for her to wait until the next month, and so on.

Mizuki became suspicious and finally they found out about the purikura issue, they even went to Banpresto to ask for explanations, to which Banpresto responded that they received the copyright to do it from the (fictitious) company that Igarashi created without Mizuki or Toei. They also told her how Igarashi confirmed to them several times that she had Mizuki's permission. Although purikura was considered a test, they received benefits for it.

As a result of this, everything that Igarashi had been doing in Hong Kong was discovered: she published manga products without authorization through Jade Dynasty Publishing. When this publisher found out that they didn't have Mizuki's permission either, they canceled the contract with Candy Corporation.

So far it was discovered what Igarashi had been doing without Mizuki's permission:

Original reproductions by Fuji Sankei and others.

Candy Candy reprint by Fusosha Publishing.

Fuji Sankei CD-ROM.

Postcards and cards manufactured by Jade Dynasty Publishing.

The Banpresto purikura.

Legal CD-ROM Manga.

Illegal CD-ROM Manga.

To all this, Igarashi insisted that 80% of Candy Candy belongs to her, and that only 20% belongs to Mizuki.

The case of fake original illustrations

In August 1997, the sale of original illustrations (again, without Mizuki's permission) was announced in the Sankei Shimbun. Finally, in September 1997, Fuji Sankei was sued for its lack of sincerity. These illustrations were actually prints made by a printer, they went on sale in February 1998 as a high quality print, but people in the art world warned that it wasn't a high quality print. That is, they were selling reprints at a high price as if they were high quality but they weren't.

An expert commented that these fakes have a real value of 30 to 200 yen ($0.19-1.27). If they were originals, it would be between 8,000 and 20,000 yen ($50.73-126.84) (and framed); but Igarashi and Fuji Sankei sold them for between 40,000 and 140,000 yen ($253.67-887.85). The deceived fans were deeply hurt, if they had known that they were buying it without Mizuki's permission and at a higher price than the real one, they wouldn't have bought it.

Mail order advertisements in newspapers ceased, but they were still distributed and sold in art galleries, for example Atelier Beauty and Prince Gallery.

The problem of selling products without the Mizuki's name

A friend of Igarashi spread the false rumor that Mizuki sued Igarashi without talking to her first. In fact, the decision to report a friend of 20 years wasn't easy for Mizuki, but she had to do it AFTER talking to her. But she and Fuji Sankei refused to have a conversation with her about what happened. Several people told Mizuki to be careful with Igarashi, but Mizuki always defended her.

In the indication © on products, the names of all copyright holders must be added and never omitted without their consent. In the following images you can see which are the official products and which are the Igarashi products.

In this bag we see that the three names are included, it is original.

This backpack is also an official product, it contains the names of Mizuki and Igarashi.

Let's now look at the illegal merchandise. In this product we can see only the Igarashi's name.

This other one used Mizuki's name without her permission.

The impossible broadcast of Candy Candy

In 2001 all broadcasting rights granted to foreign companies expired. So the later copies are pirated copies disguised as official products. This was done, for example, by Power International Multimedia Inc., Igarashi's business partner in Taiwan. Even after Igarashi lost her lawsuit in 2008, Power International released this DVD box set unlicensed from Toei Animation.

When it was discovered what Igarashi had been doing, Toei and Mizuko planned to resolve the situation by ratifying the illegal goods (confirming the counterfeit products and rebirthing them as an official product) if the Igarashi side appealed and didn't fight further after the court's ruling, with the intention to help scammed companies. But the matter reached the Supreme Court. The products spread so much around the world that nothing could be done about it.

On August 23, 1999, Mizuki and Toei signed an agreement stating that Toei Animation could register "Candy Candy" as a trademark so that it can broadcast the anime.

Currently, Toei Animation is wary of digitally remastering all 115 episodes (which would cost a considerable amount of money) only to have it eventually canceled due to the ongoing copyright dispute.

Mizuki allowed the anime to be broadcast. But there are many factors why it cannot be broadcast, even abroad:

The contract with Toei Animation hasn't been renewed.

The copyright dispute.

The problem of infringement of trademark rights by Igarashi.

Igarashi sent Toei Animation to court to invalidate its trademark on July 10, 2001, but this was dismissed.

Igarashi filed a lawsuit against Mizuki requesting consent to remake it.

In short, if both creators don't recognize the copyright and give their consent, the anime cannot be broadcast. But Igarashi didn't want to, she even wanted the trademark rights for herself, but Mizuki didn't allow it. Anyway, it's not fair because the anime version is also the work of Toei staff and voice actors. Igarashi gave Toei permission to rebroadcast it, but without acknowledging Mizuki's copyright, it became a vicious cycle.

Japan Manga Society against Kyoko Mizuki

Igarashi has publicly stated on many sites that Kyoko Mizuki isn't the original author. This is quite questionable because the story was written by Mizuki, Igarashi drew it. The Japan Manga Society doesn't offer Mizuki's presence and instead allows Igarashi to present convenient arguments and dismiss the Supreme Court's ruling. The Copyright Subcommittee of the Japan Manga Society declared that Mizuki's blocking the sale of products produced by Igarashi without permission from Mizuki and Toei was an abuse of rights without justifiable reason, even suggesting that Igarashi file a lawsuit against Mizuki.

During and after losing the case, Igarashi continued her illegal business saying that she had reached a deal with Mizuki (a lie).

Yumiko Igarashi on trial

Kodansha itself attempted to persuade Igarashi to apologize and reconcile with Mizuki by submitting a total of 3 statements to the district court in 1998 by Mitsuro Shimizu, the editor in charge of Candy Candy at Kodansha. Still, Japan Manga Society said Kodansha didn't testify. Mitsuro Shimizu explained that the editorial department selected Mizuki as the original author, the concept of Candy was discussed between Igarashi, Mizuki and Shimizu. Igarashi expressed her wishes and opinions but in the end it was Mizuki who made the final decision as the writer. Kunio Hase, the director of the Japan Manga Society said that these statements were false. Yukio Shindo, director of copyright business promotion at Kodansha, stated in court in October 1998 that manga works written from the original work are always subject to the original copyright of the original author, which to use a work for secondary use, permission must be obtained from the original author and the manga artist whatever it may be (even if they're illustrations) and that Kodansha always considered Kyoko Mizuko as the original author during the 20-year contract. The Japan Manga Society said that the Supreme Court's decision to position Mizuki as the original author is an absurd ruling that doesn't reflect the real situation of the manga industry. Kodansha has always maintained with legal opinions that Kyoko Mizuki is the original author and the manga work is a derivative, the work of the original manuscript. Yumiko Igarashi commented that the Supreme Court ruling naming Mizuko as the original author was unfair and doesn't accept that the person who wrote "just the words" has the copyright. In this situation, neither Kodansha can reprint the manga, nor can Toei broadcast the anime.

List of court cases related to “Candy Candy”

February 25, 1999: "Candy Candy" Case (Fuji Sankei)

Mizuki denounces the sale without her permission of false "high quality" illustrations by Igarashi and Fuji Kasei. The court recognized Mizuki as the owner of the copyright and ordered Igarashi to stop publication. Characters can't be used without Mizuki's permission. In November 1995 they signed a contract that established that their consent was required for the use of the characters, but Igarashi breached it.

April 8, 1999: "Candy Candy" Incident (Yumiko Igarashi Museum)

Mizuki denounces that products with Candy Candy's image continue to be sold without her permission, even after winning the first trial. The Yumiko Igarashi Museum had been conducting mail-order sales of Candy Candy products on the official Yumiko Igarashi website.

March 17, 2000: Candy Candy Illustration Sales Case (Shizuka Art)

Mizuki sues Shizuka Art for selling Candy Candy's image without her permission. An interim injunction was granted against Shizuka Art to prohibit sales. Shizuka Art was exhibiting and selling new paintings by Yumiko Igarashi as original paintings.

March 30, 2000: "Candy Candy" Case (Fuji Sankei)

The judge noted that in manga, the illustrations and the development of the story are inseparable and integral. You can't sell the illustrations.

May 25, 2000: "Candy Candy" Case (Kabaya Foods)

Between 1998 and 1999, Kabaya Foods, with only Igarashi's consent, manufactured and sold candy bags featuring the Candy Candy characters. The judge stated that the original author can exercise copyright even if only images are used. The Tokyo District Court ordered the defendant to pay approximately 3 million yen ($19,029.75).

October 17, 2000: Candy Candy Paintings Sales Case (Shizuka Art)

The "Hello Candy Candy" exhibition displayed and sold paintings of Candy Candy, again without Mizuki's consent.

December 26, 2000: Candy Candy Commercialization Case

Mizuki demands Fuji Sankei and Yumiko Igarashi.

March 2001: Japanese anime remake test

Igarashi filed a lawsuit against Mizuki demanding a remake of Candy Candy with Nippon Animation.

August 7-September 28, 2001: Toei trademark invalidation trial

Igarashi filed a trademark invalidation suit against Toei Animation on July 10 but it was dismissed because in 1999 Mizuki and Toei signed an agreement establishing that Toei Animation would register Candy Candy as a trademark.

October 25, 2001: "Candy Candy" Case (Fuji Sankei)

For the third time, the judge explains to her that copyright can't be enforced without the consent of the original author and the manga artist. They granted the copyright to the original author, Mizuki.

February 23, 2002: "Candy Candy" Incident (Lucky Corporation, Osaka)

Lucky Corporation sues Igarashi because it suffered damages of approximately 45 million yen ($285,446.25) from the manufacture and sale of "Candy Candy" products, a right granted by Igarashi but not by Mizuki. Igarashi paid about 10 million yen ($63,432.50) and a settlement fee.

April 2002: Otaru Art Museum Exhibition Test

Yumiko sued Mizuki over the exhibition at the Otaru Art Museum.

May 30, 2002: Candy Candy Clothing Sale (Tanii, Dan Enterprises, Sunbright, Earth Project)

Mizuki sues several clothing sales companies for commercializing Candy Candy characters without permission. The damage claim was for 55 million yen ($348,878.75), but the Tokyo District Court ordered her to pay approximately 29 million yen ($183,954.25).

September 10, 2003: "Candy Candy" merchandise breach of contract case

Toymaker Apple One made Candy Candy puzzles, again, only with Igarashi's permission, not Mizuki's. So they sued Igarashi and other companies that claimed to own the copyrights they granted them to make the puzzles.

July 21, 2004: "Candy Candy" merchandise breach of contract case

The Tokyo District Court of First Instance sentenced Igarashi to pay approximately 1.75 million yen ($11,100.69).

September 2005: Kurashiki Art Museum Exhibition Test

Mizuki against the Kurashiki Art Museum, which held an exhibition of Candy Candy with only the permission of Igarashi, who said "I don't need permission to show it."

甜甜 Lady Lady: The Taiwanese Candy

You may have ever used an image mistakenly thinking it was Candy. That's because Igarashi created a "new original work" called "Lady Lady" in Taiwan that curiously resembles "Candy Candy" (the difference is in the bangs and that she doesn't have freckles). The other two characters also look like Anthony and Terry.

In this way, Igarashi challenges Toei Animation by infringing (again) Toei's trademark rights. As if that were not enough, "Lady Lady" is the title of the animated version of "Lady!!" by Yoko Hide and trademark of Toei Animation. Also, Candy Candy's title in Chinese is "小甜甜" (Xiǎo tián tián), literally "Little Candy Candy". I mean, it's a shameless mix between Candy Candy and Lady Lady. 甜甜 is the Chinese name of Yumiko Igarashi's Lady Lady.

Current situation

Since as of today they have not reached an agreement, the anime cannot be broadcast nor the manga can be published either in Japan or abroad. The authors continued with their professional careers. Igarashi can't create or sell any products related to Candy Candy, something Mizuki can do, without using Igarashi's illustrations.

To date, Igarashi has't expressed any apology to Mizuki or Toei Animation. In fact, she is suspected of still producing illegal goods on the foreign market. Mizuki feels sad, not only because of everything that happened, but also because of the malicious mentality that Igarashi had about her, thinking that she was her friend.

Please, be careful with the products you buy of Candy Candy, try to make sure they're original and not illegal products. Do not contribute to Igarashi's illegal business.

Sources:

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Biden wants to ban ripoff “financial advisors”

I'll be at the Studio City branch of the LA Public Library on Monday, November 13 at 1830hPT to launch my new novel, The Lost Cause. There'll be a reading, a talk, a surprise guest (!!) and a signing, with books on sale. Tell your friends! Come on down!

Once, American workers had "defined benefits pensions," where their employers promised to pay them a certain amount every year from their retirement to their death. Jimmy Carter swapped that out for 401(k)s, "market" pensions where you have to guess which stocks will be valuable or starve in your old age:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/07/25/derechos-humanos/#are-there-no-poorhouses

The initial 401(k) rollout had all kinds of pot-sweeteners that made them seem like a good deal, like heavy employer matching that doubled or even tripled the value of every dollar you put into the market for your retirement. But over the years, as Reaganomics took hold and workers' power ebbed away, all these goodies were clawed back. In the end, the market-based pension makes you the sucker at the poker table, flushing your savings into a rigged casino that is firmly tilted in favor of finance barons and other eminently guillotineable plutocrats.

Neoliberalism is many things, but most of all it is a cult of individualism. The fact that three generations of workers are nows facing down retirement without pensions that will provide them with secure housing and food – let alone money to see the odd movie, buy birthday gifts for their grandkids, or enjoy a meal out now and then – is framed as millions of individual failures, not a systemic one.

In other words, if you are facing food insecurity and homelessness after a lifetime of hard work, it's because you saved wrong. Perhaps you didn't save enough (through a 40-year run of wage stagnation and skyrocketing housing, health and education costs). Or perhaps you saved wrong, making the wrong bets on the stock market. If you can't afford to run your air conditioner during a heat dome, that's on you: you should have been better at stocks.

Apologists for this system will say that you don't have to be good at stocks – you just have to pay an Independent Financial Advisor to pick the stocks for you and you'll be fine. But IFAs don't work for free! What if you can't afford one?

Enter "predatory inclusion" – the practice of offering scammy, overpriced and substandard products to poor people and declaring it to be a good deed, because otherwise, those poor people would have to do without. The crypto bubble relied heavily on this: think of Spike Lee and others shilling for pump-and-dump scams as a way of "building Black wealth":

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/07/business/media/cryptocurrency-seeks-the-spotlight-with-spike-lees-help.html

More recently, Intuit and other scammy tax-prep services have argued against the IRS's plan to offer free tax preparation as bad for Black and brown people, because it will deny them the chance to be deceived and ripped off with TurboTax:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/27/predatory-inclusion/#equal-opportunity-scammers

Back in 2018, Trump won the predatory inclusion Olympics, when his Department of Labor let the Fifth Circuit abolish the "Fiduciary Rule" for Independent Financial Advisors:

https://www.investopedia.com/updates/dol-fiduciary-rule/

What was the Fiduciary Rule? It said that your IFN had to put your interests ahead of their own. Like, if there were two different funds you could bet on, and one would pay your IFN a big commission, while the other would be a better bet for you, the IFN couldn't put your retirement savings into the fund that offered them a bribe.

When Trump killed the Fiduciary Rule, he proclaimed it a victory for poor people, especially Black and brown people. After all, if IFNs weren't allowed to accept bribes for giving you bad financial advice, then they would have to make up the difference by charging you for good advice. If you couldn't afford that advice, well, you'd have to make bad retirement investments on your own, without the benefit of their sleazy self-dealing.

The Biden Administration wants to change that. Biden's Acting Labor Secretary is Julie Su, and she's very good at her job. Last spring, she forced west coast dockworkers' bosses to cough up the contract they'd stalled on for a year, with 8-10% raises for every worker, owed retroactively:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/06/16/that-boy-aint-right/#dinos-rinos-and-dunnos

Su has proposed a way to reinstate the Fiduciary Rule, as part of the Biden Administration's war on junk fees, estimating that this will increase retirees' net savings by 20%:

https://prospect.org/labor/2023-11-07-julie-su-labor-retirement-savers/

The new rule will force advisors who cheat their clients to pay restitution, and will require them to deliver all their advice in writing so that this cheating can be detected and punished.

The industry is furious, of course. They claim that "The Market (TM)" will solve this: if you get bad retirement savings advice and end up homeless and starving, then you will choose a different advisor in your next life, after you are reincarnated (I guess?).

And of course, they're also claiming that forcing IFNs to stop cheating their clients will deny poor people access to expert (bad) advice. As the Financial Services Institute's Dale Brown says, this will have a "negative impact on Main Street Americans’ access to financial advice":

https://www.fa-mag.com/news/legal-challenge-predicted-for-new-dol-fiduciary-proposal-75257.html

Here's that rule – read it for yourself, then submit a comment expressing your views on it. The government wants to hear from you, and administrative law requires them to act on the comments they receive:

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/11/03/2023-23782/proposed-amendment-to-prohibited-transaction-exemptions-75-1-77-4-80-83-83-1-and-86-128

Su is part of a wave of progressive, technically skilled regulators in the Biden administration that resulted from a horse-trading exercise called the Unity Task Force, which divvied up access to top appointments among the progressive wing and the finance wing of the Democratic Party. The progressive appointments are nothing short of incredible – the most competent and principled agency leaders America has seen in half a century:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/23/getting-stuff-done/#praxis

But then there's the finance wing's appointments, like Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley, who ruled against Lina Khan's attempt to block the rotten Microsoft/Activision merger (don't worry, Khan's appealing):

https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/14/making-good-trouble/#the-peoples-champion

Perhaps the worst, though, is Biden's Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo, a private equity ghoul who did a stint for the notorious wreckers Bain Capital before founding her own firm. Raimondo has stuffed her department full of Goldman Sachs alums, and has sidelined labor and civil society groups as she sets out to administer everything from the CHIPS Act to regulating ChatGPT.

As Henry Burke writes for the Revolving Door Project and The American Prospect, Raimondo's history as a corporate raider, her deference to the finance sector, and she and her husband's conflicts of interest from their massive stakes in companies she's regulating all serve to undermine Biden's agenda:

https://prospect.org/economy/2023-11-08-commerce-secretary-gina-raimondo-undercutting-bidenomics/

When the administration inevitably complains that its popular economic programs aren’t breaking through the media coverage, they’ll have no one to blame but themselves.

The Unity Task Force gave us generationally important policymakers, but ultimately, it's a classic "pizzaburger." If half your family wants pizza, and the other half wants burgers, and you serve them something halfway in between that makes none of them happy, you haven't made a wise compromise – you've just made an inedible mess:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/06/17/pizzaburgers/

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/11/08/fiduciaries/#but-muh-freedumbs