Add Loomer to those who don’t understand freedom of speech. 
CNN reports Supreme Court brushes aside Laura Loomer lawsuit against social media companies
The Supreme Court declined Monday to take up an appeal from Laura Loomer, the prominent far-right influencer and ally of President Donald Trump who sued social media companies for yanking her off their platforms.
Loomer, who had previously sued X and Facebook-owner Meta Platforms, filed a new lawsuit alleging the companies violated civil racketeering laws by deplatforming her as she ran for Congress in Florida in 2020 and 2022.
Among other things, her appeal raised legal questions about the scope of a law known as Section 230 that immunizes social media sites from lawsuits involving content moderation. That immunity has been widely criticized on both the left and the right for different reasons, though the high court has largely avoided delving into the issue.
Loomer told the Supreme Court in written arguments that the decisions to remove her from the platforms “stifled” her ability to “communicate with voters, raise funds, and compete in federal elections.”
“Social media is critical to campaigns, especially during COVID-19 restrictions that limited traditional campaigning methods like door-to-door canvassing and public events,” her attorneys told the Supreme Court in her appeal. “Loomer had no social media for any of her campaigns due to social media bans.”
But Loomer repeatedly lost in lower courts. Both X and Meta waived their right to respond to her appeal at the Supreme Court – a sign that the companies did not take it seriously – and the court declined to hear the appeal even though it was not briefed.
Correct Ruling
Laura Loomer has no “right” to an account on Facebook or X. Thus, her lawsuit was idiotic on constitutional grounds.
If Elon Musk removed my X account I would be very pissed off, but I would not complain about my Constitutional rights being violated.
None of Loomer’s complaints have anything to do with freedom of speech.
Freedom of Speech
Freedom of speech is the right to express ideas without government interference.
Freedom of speech does not give anyone the right to social media platforms.
Freedom of Speech Includes These Rights
- Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag).
West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943). - Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war (“Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”).
Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969). - To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971). - To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns.
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976). - To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions).
Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977). - To engage in symbolic speech, (e.g., burning the flag in protest).
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).
Things Not Allowed by Freedom of Speech
- To incite imminent lawless action. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).
- To make or distribute obscene materials.
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957). - To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988). - Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986). - Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).
Hegseth Tries Turning Back 94 Years of Press Freedom
Bloomberg comments Hegseth Tries Turning Back 94 Years of Press Freedom
In a 17-page memo that journalists will now be required to undertake only to publish material that has been “approved for public release by an appropriate authorizing official, even if it is unclassified.” If they don’t sign this undertaking, they lose their access to the building and all military facilities, and with it their ability to cover the defense policy of the world’s largest military power.
To justify the measure, Pete Hegseth, the defense secretary, channeled this distrust: “The ‘press’ does not run the Pentagon — the people do.”
In the Pentagon Papers case, the New York Times and Washington Post won the right to publish a critical analysis of the war in Vietnam that thedefense establishment had decided not to publish.
It’s not a question of whether the people or the press controls the department, as Hegseth frames it, but rather whether the press should be able to monitor it on behalf of the people.
Under the current interpretation of the First Amendment, American journalists have charted the disasters in Vietnam, the horrible mistakes in Iraq and the abuses in Abu Ghraib jail in 2003, and Joe Biden’s disastrous retreat from Afghanistan in 2021. It would have been difficult if not impossible for them to do these things had Hegseth’s rules been in force.
Justice Hugo Black on the Pentagon Papers
The last opinion written by Justice Hugo Black before his death was on the Pentagon Papers.
Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.
Pentagon Papers – New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)
Please consider JUSTIA US Supreme Court review of New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) Hugo Black
In seeking injunctions against these newspapers, and in its presentation to the Court, the Executive Branch seems to have forgotten the essential purpose and history of the First Amendment. When the Constitution was adopted, many people strongly opposed it because the document contained no Bill of Rights to safeguard certain basic freedoms. They especially feared that the new powers granted to a central government might be interpreted to permit the government to curtail freedom of religion, press, assembly, and speech.
In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors.
The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell. In my view, far from deserving condemnation for their courageous reporting, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other newspapers should be commended for serving the purpose that the Founding Fathers saw so clearly. In revealing the workings of government that led to the Vietnam war, the newspapers nobly did precisely that which the Founders hoped and trusted they would do.
Far Beyond the Pentagon
Unfortunately, these actions go far beyond the Pentagon. Trump is suing political opponents just because he does not like what they say.
As of October 2025, Donald Trump is engaged in several lawsuits against media organizations, including a new $15 billion defamation suit against The New York Times.
YouTube agreed to pay $24 million to settle Trump lawsuit. A notice of settlement details that $22 million will go toward building a new White House ballroom.
In July, Paramount Global settled with him for $16 million after he took issue with a “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris that aired on CBS.
Trump is also suing The Wall Street Journal over its reporting about his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein.
On September 19, NBC reported Judge tosses Trump’s $15B New York Times lawsuit, calling it ‘improper’ and ‘invective’
Undoubtedly that is the correct decision.
The Trump Administration Is Working Hard to Kill Freedom of the Press
I discussed freedom of speech in The Trump Administration Is Working Hard to Kill Freedom of the Press
The Pentagon’s new restrictions on reporters are outrageous and unconstitutional.
Reader Responses Were Very Disappointing
Reader 1: You forgot to mention the ridiculous hypocrisy of complaining about trump suing newspapers (and winning, no less) when they lie and fabricate news.
Mish: If you are trying to prove you do not understand the issue at all, congrats, you just did. You either believe in the Constitution or you don’t. And you are not the arbiter of alleged lies.
Reader 2: “I’m against the government shutting down the press over supposed lies. I’m also against the supposed press peddling government lies.”
Mish: OK we are both against lies. Hooray!!!
Who gets to determine lies?
You?
Trump?
Me?
Who?
Raeder 3: There is no First Amendment aspect to this thing. This memo doesn’t stop you from talking. At most, you won’t be welcome inside the Pentagon if they don’t trust you.
Mish: Reader 3 has a a reading problem.
In a 17-page memo that journalists will now be required to undertake only to publish material that has been “approved for public release by an appropriate authorizing official, even if it is unclassified.“
Hegseth demands all Pentagon reporting be government approved.
Reader 4: This doesn’t mean that the government has to share or make available information it doesn’t want to, outside of any law requiring them to do so.
Mish: When did I or anyone else suggest that red herring. While correct, has nothing to do with anything I wrote.
Reader 5: You have over simplified a complex issue. The media has gone to war against Trump, and they don’t even pretend to be objective in their reporting. It is all one sided, always antiTrump. If their reporting were even remotely objective, there would be no issue whatsoever, and they would be free as always to pursue the truth, nothing but the truth…….
Mish: I have not oversimplified anything.
Do you support the Constitutional right to free speech or not?
Yes, it is 100% that simple.
End Reader Comments
Yes, this is very simple. But readers responded with red herrings and media lies that have nothing to do with Constitutional rights.
I am not just blaming Trump. Both Biden and Trump want to stifle the media, in opposite directions, of course.
The cancel culture wants no discussion of climate change.
This gets to the question of alleged lies. Who gets to decide what is a lie or isn’t?
Democrats and Republicans both want to. I don’t want anyone deciding.
Nor do I want social media to forcibly post the views of Laura Loomer, Trump, or Joe Biden.
The first amendment prohibits government stifling the press. It’s not about forcing social media or the press to post a private person’s views.
But They Are All Liars!
Yes, so what? If we lock up Joe Biden for lies, put Trump in the same cell.
Yes, the media is biased. But that includes Fox News and alternate news sites.
Is Fox News any better than the New York Times?
If you are a Trump supporter your answer is yes. But if you are a Democrat your answer is no.
As a Libertarian who takes heat from both sides, I suggest they are equally bad.
At least I see the sides. I subscribe to the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, and Bloomberg. I read countless other sites.
Most of the people screaming only read the sites that support their views.
I hear ad hominem attacks all the time. “Mish, how can you believe the WSJ (or NYT)?” My response is always “What about the article do you disagree with?”
Typically that gets silence or bitching about some minor issue.
Flag Burning
If idiots want to burn the flag, I say go ahead. Show everyone you are an idiot.
And Trump?
Please note Donald Trump Issues Ultimatum to American Flag Burners
President Donald Trump, writing on Truth Social, informed “ICE, Border Patrol, Law Enforcement, and all U.S. Military” that “from this point forward, anybody burning the American Flag will be subject to one year in prison” in accordance with a previous executive order.
That is a clearly unconstitutional executive order. But Trump does not give a damn about the constitution.
Several people responded to The Trump Administration Is Working Hard to Kill Freedom of the Press with a single word comment: TDS.
That immediately proved they are the ones with TDS (Type II). If you prefer, call it Trump Worship Syndrome (TWS).
There is no doubt, none, that Trump is attempting to stifle the press. If you don’t see that, it’s because you don’t want to see it.
That Biden tried to suppress the press too is irrelevant. You either support the constitution or you don’t.
I choose to speak up regardless of what it does to my readership.
Addendum Grok Replied …
Agreed. The First Amendment restricts government action, not private platforms’ content moderation decisions. Loomer’s racketeering suit against Meta and X failed because companies can choose whom to host, absent proven illegal conspiracy—which courts didn’t find here. True free speech advocacy targets state overreach, not forcing private entities to carry controversial voices.
Addendum II
A lawyer friend of mine replied …
“Nice job again, Mish. A way of looking at this is that social media companies have freedom of speech also. The court has held that social media platforms, like newspapers, have the right to include and exclude what they like.”
Social Media is a difficult topic. On one hand it has become the new public square and no one should have the ability to capriciously censor just because they own the technology. I think Social Media should publish their guidelines and make it very transparent as to how they censor so they are liable when they violate the guidelines. That way they are balanced in the restricting of political speech and if they violate them, they can face financial consequences like filing inaccurate financial reports.
It should not be based on a government agency etc.
Is it protected speech when the Social Security office says they have $2 trillion in their “reserves” and it will last them another ten years? When is fact what they call reservers are over at the Treasury Debt. and are part of our National Debt.
That is a reserve.
Both Meta and Youtube have agreed in court that they censored and even removed on their platforms by government direction during Biden’s term.
The government is allowed to have viewpoint. The government is allowed to have an opinion, including “we think you should take this down, but it’s up to you.”
Platforming/deplatforming politicians based their politics while they are running for office seems like election interference by a large corporation, and that needs to be addressed.
well, I’d just say there is a difference in mentality with someone saying THE flag, and A flag. “THE flag” makes the item you are holding a much bigger thing than just the item you are holding. The same with people who say “MY flag”, or “OUR flag”. I bought it at Walmart, so it’s not YOUR flag.
While I would support a perfect separation between public and private property, there is a 1st Amendment case that concerned the idea that a privately-owned shopping mall is the modern legal equivalent of a town square and the owner had restrictions on the types of speech it could prohibit despite being “private.” Logically speaking, an argument can be made that social media such as X are an even more modern version of a public square.
I find that thing with initials LL repugnant, but if we are to have free speech, than we must allow cretinous troglodytes such as it to have free speech as well.
The issue lies further upstream here. If we busted monopolies like we are obligated by law to do, there would not be a single public square online. Not to mention the fediverse is already growing fast because people want decentralization for social media. The internet needs to be decentralized in a massive way to ever be long lasting.
A mall is a place of business in which the public has spaces in which it can gather away from the businesses. A Home Depot does not. They are both places of business. X is not a place of business. It is a privately owned town hall and should never be confused with a public space as the owner of X frequently censors speech in his hall because its his.
I have tried to take in this site’s data, much of it is useful/insightful as it was back in 2008, but the DTD is way past my level of absorption capabilities; so I am going to
disengage for now..
If we conflate social media w/so called print media AND both agree on an issue, any issue, we then have…guess what?? GOVERNMENT !!! Gosh, do they ever, ever agree on an issue? Oh yeah! Under that condition we now have 2, two sets of government…..
That woman should be suing her plastic surgeon for turning her into a Picasso freakshow.
“ Is Fox News any better than the New York Times?”
Wa-a-y better. And saying “But what about…” is no exoneration at all when we are talking about the stinking lies published by the NYT.
The press especially on the Left has adopted the Nixonian approach to journalism. Do you remember when Nixon claimed that one of his generals was a pederast? His assistant in the Oval Office said sit, you can’t say that. You know it isn’t true. Nixon famously replied, “Yeah but I want to see him deny it.”
The NYT is hardly alone in publishing rank lies every day about Trump for the sport of watching him deny them.
Mish, you are pretending that lies should not have consequences because “freedom of speech”. You are objecting to law suits in response to calumny and backbiting and claim that it is vindictive and vengeful. No it’s not. They settle out of court because they know full well the court is going to hammer them for their perfidy. It is not a constitutional right to print lies and defamation.
Multiple times in this article you infer, hint, intimate with malice, that Trump exercising his right not to be lied about or to seek damages is unconstitutional. The NYT is free to lie and just as free to pay the consequences. We, for our part, are free to watch them deny it.
Well thought out and presented. Agree.
Ridiculous propaganda.
If Trump says “Good health is important”, the New York Times will immediately publish an article “Good health is overrated”.
They’ve already done it with the “fat acceptance” movement.
Trump is using the NYT brilliantly: he states the obvious, and the NYT thinks it must respond with the opposite no matter what.
As far as Social Media, if they chose to block accounts on political grounds, then they’re not a Platform, but a Publisher. In which case, millions of postings (especially photos) become copyright violations.
if we are going to have a post on what exactly is freedom of speech according to the law we cannot leave out Citizens United which determined a billionaires ability to pump billions of dollars into our elections as “speech”
There is this line of thought that states can change the articles of incorporation that limits corporations “free speech” and monetary contributions to counter Citizens United.
I mean, get Delaware to do it, and you have what, 90% of the corps?
The corps would spend whatever was required to recruit a moron army to vote against it.
The While I agree with a “Free Press” as it’s critical to a Free Country imo. I have a few issues with the overall wording of what you posted, and I am simply curious if this has equal opposite expectations of “The Press” and How and Why they report what they do. Is that “Fair & Balanced is my issue, as I believe it’s not even close at times. Although they have that Freedom, What provides the Public with assurances that they will be good, or even better, great servants of that freedom?
– And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people.
> Fair enough, but What Responsibility does the Free Press have?Paramount among the responsibilities of a free press should be the duty to Never deceive The People with False or Manipulation is there Press Reports?
>> We know the Government is held accountable by the Press for the People, but is the Press held accountable by the Government for the people? If not Why? Who then is The Peoples Steward? I don’t feel as though the Press answers to there accountability, near as closely as the Gobernment, and there is the rub as they say…
– sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell. In my view, far from deserving condemnation for their courageous reporting.
> They do so by choice, No? Courageous Reporting IS Truthful Reporting, No? No condemnation here for their service when reporting factual and non-slanted reports, but plenty of condemnation for lies, manipulation, and straight out false reporting, which I bear witness too, all the time, don’t you?
A Free Press, is only as good, as an Honest Press. And only good for America, if it’s Honest. If not Honest and Fair and Balanced, then it’s a political propaganda tool, which is All Too Common Now Days, or a bogus phony press with an Agenda!
Twitter files, anyone? Youtube bans of people questioning jabs and lockdowns? Google “search engine manipulation effect” driving election results?
A tiny sliver of humanity forms a cartel, an oligarchy, that controls the government and the corporations including the communication services. They aren’t independent of the government. i refer to this collective as our “regime”.
If we fail to force all parts of the regime to abide by the bill of rights, then the regime will continue to “forum shop” and choose that type of “service” (gov, domestic corp, foreign corp) that gives it the best tradeoffs of legal obligations and maneuvering room. To our detriment.
This specific case seems clearly routed in sensible constitutional law – a company has the right to exclude who it works with.
However the writers of the constitution couldn’t envisage the ability to automatically reach a huge targeted audience for the purpose of manipulation based on triggering prejudice. So while the social media companies should have the right to exclude individuals surely thought needs to be given to whether the state has a role in regulating AI driven bot behaviour (some good, some bad, some domestic, some foreign).
Difficult to see how this is addressed sensibly without constitutional amendment….although of course the US is currently not in any shape politically to drive to the consensus needed. Good to see people like Macron call it out.
I think the real question is whether parts of internet (no matter who they are owned by) can be considered a public square. The SC declined to take up this issue due to fear of opening a can of worms . At some point though the aggregate of all those platforms becomes effectively an airwave. Deeper question is should only social/media companies and not individuals be allowed to control any of this ? The SC declined to take up this case due to fear.
In other news, a judge’s house was burned down in South Carolina. Her husband and family escaped from a second story window/balcony
I don’t think you can really call anything that’s privately owned ‘public’. Maybe if there were government ownership of the infrastructure it runs on, but even then it’s not like radio frequencies, where one signal can physically crowd out another.
These services are dominant because they spent the money and effort to get everyone to go there. Nobody is forced to, there are plenty of alternatives, and anybody that wants to compete is free to stand up a server or container and some open source software that everyone on the internet can access.
If Elon wants to make twitter a fascist butt trumpet, he paid the 40 billion to be able to make that decision. If other platforms want to kick toxic nut jobs like Laura Looner off their platform, that is entirely their business.
When everyone lie words have no meaning. Gold futures: 4000.
truth shall set you free
i meant: gold
The Mid-Term is 11/03/2026, so $4,000 now sounds about right. We are still just over a year, so plenty of room to run still perhaps, but then it’s lights out imo.
I see a slow drop starting towards year end, and then a somewhat larger drop in size beginning next year. That will continue until the larger investors have seen enough, and are happy with their fortunes at whatever level they decide to be comfortable with.
Then a fast drop that appears relentless in nature, because it will be, as everyone that can, will divest of their Gold for Cash!!! Gold as an investment, but Cash is King!
That will continue until the larger investors have seen enough, and are happy with their fortunes at whatever level they decide to be comfortable with.
==
sure buddy!! and USA is going to reduce yearly deficit from 2 trln to 1 trln$$
AINT GONNA HAPPEN!
=======
SAME DAY in 2026 gold will be 5000$ .take my word to the bank!
and that if Russia/ukraine /Taiwan are same pace and place.
=====
god forbid USA gives ukraine404 something serious!
NUCLEAR rockets are GONNA FLY!
in Russia (and i am russian speaking person) ALL MAJOR papers already publish demand ==IT IS TIME USE NUCLEAR SOMEWHERE ALONG WESTERN BORDER OF Ukraine==
alx
-SAME DAY in 2026 gold will be 5000$ .take my word to the bank!
> SAME DAY in 2026 gold will be at or below 2,000$
Let’s see who is closer, or perhaps even spot on!!!
With Larry Ellison buying TikTok and his son, David, buying the parent company of CBS (to be run by Bari Weiss). Loomer will for sure be a star on TikTok. She might even get picked to host the CBS Evening News (if that’s still a thing).
who is larry elison and son
what is tiktok
what is cbs
never heard, or used!
=====
kidding, used to run oracle .that is it.
I think the oracle experience tells you all you need to know about the Ellisons.
The Section 230 immunity to lawsuits is supposed to be based on the entity immune being a publishing platform, with little to no editorial control.
If you exclude contributors who meet the site’s guidelines (such as no bestiality or advocating violence), to wit, exercising a large degree of editorial control, I don’t think the privilege of immunity from lawsuits should be the rule.
(I say this as someone very unsympathetic to Loomer’s Neocon views.)
Trump “open” to invoking the Insurrection Act
I wonder if the people working for the Pentagon are more afraid of America’s enemies abroad, or the Trump administration?
Uh Oh, Am I on a list for extermination? Just for saying that…
>>>
They’re afraid of not getting the pension. Anyone above colonel is an ass-kisser who won’t object to anything.
And here I thought that all the “Lifers” in the military were the most worried about the, Department of Defence Military Retirement Fund, being part of our National Debt to the tune of: $1.8 Trillion.
Lose the battle, but win the war. This precedence will be used to get extremists off social media. Musk can now be a great moderator on X to rebuild the middle.
Musk hates the middle and has no interest in rebuilding it.
It’s his job to rebuild it?
It’s his job to make ketamine disappear.
Nice thought!
It would be great if both sides were moderated and government listened to the voices of, and started to address the priorities of most Americans stuck in the middle.
Yup. But it seems every billionaire has given up on sports teams and now wants to be in media. Humm
Sports has jumped the shark, and they have reached the point where what they are paying these sports figures has become insane for what they offer.
Investors see/saw this and are not sure an investment is worthy in this upside down model. Paying people 5 Million, to ballroom dance, would last a day, but 30 Million to play a sport seems OK? It’s not, and people will not continue to be able to pay the money needed to allow for them to be paid the sums they are receiving. Stands are and have been becoming, more and more empty. If you remove the Corporate Sponsor’s, they would be upside down like a landslide. How long can Corporations continue this practice? It’s a bad business model that requires too much money from Joe Public to stay afloat at some point. Look at the WNBA who lose millions every single year, but stay in existence because the NBA Pays their Salaries and Keeps the League afloat, that’s why. Yeah this will work until it doesn’t…
yes if by middle you mean what billionaires approve of.
I hope the supreme court will curb taco’s reign of terror on the US before it is too late but am probably delusional in believing they will do the right thing.
Not a chance.
what terror?
you are just random Linux process running on mi5 building on computer.
Clarence Thomas is openly taking bribes and no one is doing a thing about it.
The right to speak and the right to associate only exist if you have the right not to speak and the right to not associate.
One of the cases you cited (West Virginia 1943) of the right not to speak (or not salute the flag) to me is an interesting right that should be tested by the Supremes. To me that right not to speak has been ignored by so many laws that have been passed. How can you have the right not to speak when laws like the Civil Rights Act blatantly violates that right? If I have a constitutional right not to talk then how can I be compelled to talk to those I don’t wish to associate with? For example perhaps I don’t want to associate with certain ethnic groups but the civil rights act says I can’t deny them employment, accomodation or service. Perhaps I’m an Arab who doesn’t want Jews in my motel or an Armenian who doesn’t want Turks in my restaurant?
And at the government level how do you have the right not to talk if the census takers can compel you to fill out the census? Or the IRS compels you to lodge a return?
The bakery case.
“the First Amendment is a cheap thing if all it provides is the assurance that one may say what a current majority is willing to hear.”
Charles Rembar
I would say if you had any of those problems with different races, you’d be happier in a country where discrimination against them is sanctioned. Russia… Israel… Middle East… South Africa… All those lovely garden spots.
The press has a constitutional right to free speech.
They do not have a constitutional right to be inside the Pentagon or any other secure military facility.
I think the problem arises when only certain members of the press who agree to print what the government wants are allowed into those facilities. That isn’t really a free press, its closer to propaganda.
If they said no-one gets access due to national security or whatever, I’d be more inclined to support that. Rather than forcing outlets to only report “the party line”- whichever party that is.
good comment
If they won’t come out of those secured areas to talk to the press, that’s already a problem.
I agree, the rules should be uniform.
On the plus side, if there were disclosure “we agreed to toe the party line and here’s what we heard”, that might balance things out.
The current system is already far worse, though – many, many undeclared conflicts of interest and de-facto propaganda in the ad-funded media.
Regarding my ADP post on Median Wages
https://mishtalk.com/economics/real-median-annual-wages-are-down-over-9-percent-since-may-2021/
Reader: Nice. Now do “since 1999” or “since 2007”. A worse, more chronic condition emerges, transcending some White House term.
Me: I would love to go further back.
I went back as far as I could. That’s all the data ADP has.
I would have at least wanted to go back to 2017, then 2007.
But no go.
Regarding comparisons to BLS hourly wages.
The BLS is “average” hourly wage.
ADP is “median” annual wage.
Regarding the Real Wage Growth (average per hour vs. median per year) question:
One way to reconcile this would be if the workers tracked by ADP are working fewer hours per year, and therefore receiving lower total pay. That would offset the rising average hourly pay reported by BLS.
Another would be, for the BLS data, if managers (not included) got wage cuts, but production workers’ wages rose?
Alternatively, the median used by ADP is vulnerable to shifts in the “mix”. If ADP now has more low-wage workers in their pool, that would lower the median even if every single worker was getting paid more?
What’s sad is that the IRS has pretty much all the income data one would need (other than the black markets), but no one digests it.
Could also be that the BLS data is simply garbage due to incompleteness of survey responses and other methodological issues.
It is a lot worse than portrayed b/c it doesn’t count those with zero wages. It is only measuring wages above zero. That in and of itself is a problem. Those with no wages should also be counted in any statistics and in the overall calculation.
Thank you.
Keep doing what you’re doing Mish! If you’re taking heat from both sides it means you’re being honest.
Thanks!