Subprime Donny

‘I paid them back’ is not a defense when it comes to defrauding banks.

By
480
Former President Donald Trump speaks during a rally, Wednesday, Sept. 20, 2023, at Grand River Conference Center in Dubuque, Iowa. (Photo by Jabin Botsford/ Washington Post/Getty Images)

Some things in finance are very difficult to explain. Others aren’t. What Donald Trump did wrong in defrauding banks is one of the easy ones to explain. 

Trump’s defense is, basically, something like this: “Sure, I lied about my assets, but everybody does it, and the banks got paid back—so, nobody got hurt.” That is, of course, nonsense, and the court is right to judge it to be such. 

As everybody with a credit card or a mortgage knows, you pay less for loans and other financial services the better your credit standing is. Trump defrauded several lenders by lying on loan paperwork about the value of his assets and, in doing so, cheated those institutions and their shareholders out of the additional income they would have had if they had charged Trump a rate appropriate to his actual financial situation. If Trump had gone into a car dealership and signed paperwork to buy a Honda Civic and then drove off in a Mercedes S-Class, it wouldn’t be a defense to say that he made all the payments on the Civic, so nobody got hurt. His fraud was in using deceit to pay for a lower-priced product when he was receiving one that should have been more expensive. 

This content is available exclusively to Dispatch members
Try a membership for full access to every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism.
Start Your Free Trial
Already a paid member? Sign In
480
By
Comments (480)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Anne W (Raw5254)

    Thank you so much for another good lesson on economics. I wish I’d had a teacher in high school who was that interesting. I think half the reason a lot of kids don’t do well in school is because the material is so dry.

    And that you, also, for the list of books. I saw several that immediately interested me.

    Collapse
  2. Chipwatkins

    Almost any of Jean Edward Smith's biographies--thorough and accessible--is worth your time.

    I especially liked "Lucius D. Clay: An American Life," his biography of the general who was such an important part of General and President Eisenhower's successes before, during, and after World War II. Clay--the governor of post-war West Germany--was so beloved by the Germans that they lined the streets of Berlin to salute him when he left after leading the Berlin Airlift, and when the Russians built the Berlin Wall, President Kennedy promptly sent him back to West Berlin to reassure the Germans that the US would stand with them.

    To the best of my knowledge, Smith's work is the only full-length biography of General Clay.

    Collapse
  3. Dfking35

    Relevant and provocative, as usual, thanks. Why no mention of climate change in the discussion of a "de-radicalized" consensus? The science seems pretty clear to me, and we are watching the economic and national security impacts pile up with each successive natural disaster. Or, maybe we should just wait for the insurance/reinsurance carriers to make these decisions for us?

    A book I'd add to your list is "Champlain's Dream", by David Hackett Fischer. A great story about courage, politics, and human nature. DK

    Collapse
    1. Kevin Williamson

      As far as I can tell, the climate-change consensus is pretty much: "Do nothing." The gulf between what the representatives of democratically elected governments say at UN conferences and what they do before facing elections is pretty steep, don't you think? Voters pretty consistently say they care about the issue, but they give it a low priority, mostly.

      Collapse
      1. Dfking35

        Thx for the response. I agree that the gulf is wide, but it's getting narrower. This voter gives it a higher priority than most, and "do nothing" is not part of any consensus I'd want to be a part of. Might be a good topic for further discussion. DK

        Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    Thomas Sowell - A Conflict of Visions

    Jonah Goldberg - Suicide of the West

    CS Lewis - The Four Loves and The Abolition of Man

    George Will - The Conservative Sensibility

    Matt Continetti - The Right

    “The more we medicalize and pathologize ordinary human behavior—ordinary, rotten, disreputable, horrifying human behavior—the more we divest meaningful moral agency from ordinary human beings, including awful ones such as Donald Trump.”

    A very good point. Of course, that’s actually the point - some people WANT to divest meaningful moral agency from human beings. They believe humans don’t have agency and they don’t believe in evil, either. They really do believe it’s mental illness.

    Good stuff regarding unions and cars.

    Collapse
  5. Lukenmd

    As I read your list-of-ten essential readings for the young conservative, I noted that two very important works had failed to make the cut.

    The first is Yuval Levin’s “The Great Debate - Edmund Burke, Thomas Paine, and the Birth of Left and Right.” A splendidly readable telling of the historical and philosophical roots of our great division.

    The young conservative should also work his or her way through Matthew Continetti’s magisterial “The Right: The Hundred Year War For American Conservatism.” In my view an essential guide to the cast of characters and groups - and unpredictable events - that have brought us to where we are today.

    Keep up your thoughtful and stimulating journalism!

    Gerry Luken
    (More formally, Martin G. Luken III MD FACS)

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Ben Connelly

      I second that on Continetti’s book!

      Collapse
      1. Lukenmd

        We are of one mind on Continetti!
        By all means have a look at the Levin book: the parallel biographical sketches of Paine and Burke make a fascinating counterpoint to the contrasting philosophical positions they held.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Ben Connelly

          I want to read it! I’ve heard Yuval talk about it, but so far I’ve only read A Time to Build.

          Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Michael Dan Martin

    My favorite Robert Heinlein book, and I believe his greatest, is The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, which should be in any libertarians library. Ralph Moody’s Little Britches, Man of the Family, The Fields of Home and his other books are a vastly under-appreciated conservative treasure.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Dr. Livesey

    I need to reread this article and read the column more regularly. There are things here I want to remember and remember more easily. Just two examples: The relative size of the Big Three car companies and the huge size of America's largest companies is a great reminder of just how big this country is, and it's worth keeping in mind.

    The commendation of books and book reading (and the list of books) at the end is also good to know. The Dispatch should have more book reviews (they could be published on Sundays and Mondays to make them more prominent on slow news mornings).

    "Highpoint" is two words.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Michael Dan Martin

    “If social conservatives want to make hostility toward homosexuals and other sexual minorities their central project, then they are going to lose that fight on raw political terms and alienate possible allies in the process. If, on the other hand, social conservatives want to talk about education reform, the excesses and genuine dangers of gender ideology …”

    Here’s the problem. Conservatives talk about “the excess and genuine dangers of gender ideology” and are accused of hostility toward gay and transgender people. And this tactic works if not answered.

    Collapse
  9. Kdg

    Great book list, Mr. Williamson. Let me suggest another entry: "A Conflict of Visions" by Thomas Sowell. About as even-handed an explanation of our current social/political/ideological divide as you will find. Not an easy read, but well worth the effort.

    Collapse
  10. Walter.L.Appling

    Back in the mid-sixties, I read an article in Motor Trend (I believe). It was about General Motors. One thing that stuck with me was the 60/60/60 plan. That GM would have a 60% market share and a $60 stock price in time for Ed Cole’s 60th birthday. Being a clueless, small town teenager, I was impressed by such a “plan.”
    I’ve thought about the hubris and the blindness of that article a lot over the years.

    GM was the number one company on the Fortune 500 in 1965. Ford was third, Chrysler sixth. The Big Three had a combined market share of 92% in 1965.

    Collapse
Load More