1.12.26 Scrutiny of immigration courts, affordability myths, and the U.S. operation to capture General Manuel Noriega

Summary

The World and Everything In It – Episode Summary Date: January 12, 2026
Episode Focus:
The episode explores the scrutiny of immigration courts, myths about housing affordability tied to institutional investors, and recounts the U.S. military operation to capture Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega—drawing parallels with recent U.S. action in Venezuela. Expert guests, legal analysis, and historical reporting provide comprehensive coverage, with a biblical worldview throughout.

---

Episode Overview

This episode delves into three main areas:

• The scope and review of decisions by U.S. immigration courts, especially regarding asylum and persecution
• The debate over whether banning institutional investors from the housing market improves affordability
• The history and implications of the U.S. military’s 1989 intervention in Panama to capture General Manuel Noriega

---

Key Discussions & Insights

1. Scrutiny of Immigration Courts

Segment Start: 05:34

Legal Docket: Urias Orellana v. Bondi

• Issue: Should federal courts have the authority to second-guess immigration court findings on what constitutes “persecution” for asylum seekers?
• Case Background: Douglas Urias Orellana fled El Salvador after his family was targeted by a hitman. He sought asylum in the U.S.; immigration courts believed his story but ruled his threats didn’t rise to “persecution” as legally defined (07:08).
• Asylum Seeker's Argument: Legal interpretation, not just fact-finding, is involved in deciding whether certain threats count as persecution; thus, higher courts should review (06:14).
  • Notable Quote:
    “Deciding whether undisputed facts qualifies persecution under the law involves legal interpretation, not fact finding.” (David Bonson as Nicolas Rossellini, 06:14)
• Government’s Position: Immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals are best suited to evaluate facts and credibility (08:27).
  • Notable Quote:
    “These are all questions of the kind that go to juries. The juries draw inferences.” (David Bonson as Joshua dos Santos, 08:27)
• Supreme Court Dynamics:
  • Justice Sotomayor: Raised the “mixed question” issue—how facts and law intertwine (08:49).
  • Chief Justice Roberts/Justice Kagan: Seemed inclined to leave fact-weighing with immigration courts due to heavy casework (09:10; 09:34).
  • Memorable Defense:
    “The case law as it is now is a muddle... but we don’t need to show that.” (David Bonson as Rossellini, 09:58)
• Underlying Tension: Political advocacy groups are pushing for more judicial oversight, aiming to shift the balance of immigration authority (10:05).

Legal Docket: Burke v. Choy

• Issue: Can states, via “substantive” affidavit-of-merit requirements, limit malpractice claims in federal courts?
• Case Background: A Florida man’s malpractice claim in Delaware federal court dismissed because he lacked a “sworn affidavit of merit” (11:31).
• Arguments:
  • Plaintiff: Delaware’s rule is procedural, conflicting with federal rules (12:29).
  • Defendants: The plaintiff’s challenge would upend established court precedents (13:25).
• Light Moment: Justice Alito invoked Schrödinger’s Cat, comparing the legal ambiguity over the affidavit’s nature to the quantum superposition of the famed cat (14:07).
  • Quote:
    “What are you saying is, is the affidavit... a pleading for one and not a pleading for the other?” (David Bonson, paraphrasing Alito, 14:39)

Supreme Court Decision: Beau v. United States

• Ruling: The Court clarified that a rule blocking repeat sentence challenges applies to state, not federal prisoners—5-4, with Roberts and Kavanaugh joining liberals (16:04).

---

2. The Monday Money Beat: Institutional Investors and Housing Affordability

Segment Start: 17:09

Policy Background

• President Trump proposes banning large institutional investors from buying single-family homes, citing affordability concerns.

• Treasury Secretary Scott Besant: Argues ban would target only major buyers on a non-retroactive basis (18:00).

  • Quote:
    “We want to keep the traditional mom and pop owners in... Is it a dozen homes? Is it two dozen? What makes you an aggregator?” (David Bonson as Besant, 18:04)

David Bonson’s Analysis (Financial Advisor)

• Empirical Data:
  • Some markets with little/no institutional investment (e.g., Bend, Providence, San Jose) saw some of the highest appreciation.
  • Institutional ownership is only 0.4% of the U.S. single-family housing stock; Blackstone, the largest owner, has less than 0.06% (19:17).
• Misconceptions:
  • Affordability is not caused by institutional buyers; removing them hurts supply and disincentivizes market participants.
  • Quote:
    “If it were true that people buying at scale pushes prices up... it is not President Trump’s business, nor Biden’s, nor the next president’s.” (19:17)
• Political Rhetoric:
  • Underscored that this is “class warfare” language, diverting attention from the real issue—housing supply constraints.
  • Advocacy for reducing regulatory barriers and zoning restrictions to foster more building (24:23).
  • Quote:
    “If we're concerned about affordability, this is the best argument. Why in the world would we want to take out one of the rare people bringing new supply to market?” (19:17)

Additional Discussion

• Tax System Allegations: Claims that institutional buyers get unfair breaks are overstated; individuals can also access real estate tax benefits if structured correctly (24:56).
• Government’s Role: Efforts such as having Fannie and Freddie buy mortgage bonds amount to demand stimulation, not supply, worsening price pressures (27:08).
  • Quote:
    “You can't stimulate demand and not supply and solve your problem, because it will end up being reflected in the price equilibrium.” (29:41)

Credit Card Rate Cap Proposal

• New Administration Proposal: Capping credit card rates at 10%.

• Bonson’s Take: Well-intentioned but counterproductive—would restrict access to credit for low-income borrowers, pushing them toward predatory alternatives (30:20).

  • Quote:
    “It does not have good consequences because... they don't give them the credit card. And what do the people who need credit desperately but can't get the credit card do? They go to loan sharks.” (30:20)

• Closing Thought: Emphasized the need for policy consistency, criticizing attempts at “leftist” solutions by conservative politicians when politically expedient (33:03).

---

3. World History Book: Operation Just Cause—The Capture of Manuel Noriega

Segment Start: 34:06

Story Background

• Current Context: Capture of Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro compared to U.S. Operation Just Cause in Panama, 1989–90.
• Narrative:
  • Corporal Jeff Teagues recalls sudden deployment and the confusion, fear, and determination before the Panama invasion (34:51).
  • U.S. military ousts Noriega after he nullifies elections, attacks opponents, and allows attacks on Americans (35:38).
• Historical Details:
  • Operation involved 20,000 American troops; Noriega sought asylum in Vatican embassy.
  • Psychological Warfare: U.S. psy-ops used loudspeakers with blaring music to pressure Noriega into surrender (38:42).
  • Outcome: Noriega surrendered, was extradited to Miami on drug charges, and the U.S. initiated reconstruction; Panama is now a stable democracy with tripled per capita income (39:08).

Notable Quotes and Moments

• Teagues:
  • “I had no idea where we were going, so we were getting our kit together... loading ammunition, getting all your gear put together.” (34:58)
  • “I had to remind myself... who are the good guys? The good guys are red.” (36:35–36:41)
• Reporter Mary Muncie: “Operation Just Cause was completed 36 years ago this month.” (40:25)

---

Timestamps of Notable Segments

• [05:34] Legal Docket Introduction
• [06:14] Urias Orellana’s Attorney Arguments
• [08:27] Government’s Position on Fact-Finding
• [09:34] Justice Kagan's Commentary
• [10:05] Political Angle of Immigration Review
• [11:31] Burke v. Choy Case Details
• [14:07] Justice Alito's Schrödinger’s Cat Analogy
• [16:04] Supreme Court’s Beau v. United States Decision
• [17:09] Monday Money Beat Begins
• [18:00] Treasury Secretary Besant’s Housing Policy
• [19:17] David Bonson’s Institutional Buyer Analysis
• [24:23] Housing Policy & Washington’s Role
• [27:08] Fannie/Freddie Mortgage Bond Policy
• [29:41] Impact of Demand-Side Interventions
• [30:20] Credit Card Rate Cap Debate
• [33:03] Bonson Wrap-up, Call for Consistency
• [34:06] History Book: Noriega’s Capture
• [34:51] Corporal Teagues’ Recollections
• [38:42] Noriega’s Surrender via Loudspeakers

---

Memorable Quotes

• David Bonson:

  • “It is understandable that politically the President wants to address affordability... but we cannot turn to the left's playbook out of political desperation.” (19:17)
  • “These issues keep us from having that important discussion [about housing supply].” (19:17)
  • “We really, I think, have to be careful here to maintain that integrity, that consistency and ultimately that moral authority.” (33:03)

• Justice Samuel Alito, via paraphrase:

  • “Is the affidavit... a pleading for one and not a pleading for the other?” (14:39)

• Mary Muncie (Reporting on Noriega):

  • “Operation Just Cause was completed 36 years ago this month.” (40:25)

---

Tone & Style

Clear, analytical, and rooted in a biblical worldview. The hosts engage in thoughtful debate, present data-driven arguments, and contextualize legal and historical developments for everyday listeners. Occasional humor and personal stories (e.g. Schrödinger’s Cat analogy, Corporal Teagues’ anecdotes) make complex topics relatable and engaging.

---

Conclusion

This episode delivers in-depth legal analysis of pivotal Supreme Court immigration and malpractice cases, debunks persistent myths about housing affordability, and brings history to life by recounting the U.S. operation in Panama. Throughout, the conversation remains accessible and relevant for listeners, regardless of legal or economic expertise—emphasizing a Christian perspective on justice, policy, and historical responsibility.

Transcript

[Mary Reichard]

Good morning. U.S. immigration judges decide what amounts to persecution to trigger asylum. But should appeals courts review those?

[David Bonson]

We're going to have to look at all this evidence, all these facts and decide whether these threats were that level of menacing.

[Nick Eicher]

That's a head on legal doc. And also today, the Monday money beat taking aim at institutional investors who snap up family homes. David Bonson is standing by. And the world history book.

[David Bonson]

Last Friday, Noriega declared his military dictatorship to be in a state of war with the United States.

[Nick Eicher]

The 1990 case that echoes today.

[Mary Reichard]

It's Monday, January 12th. This is the world and everything in it from listeners supported world radio. I'm Mary Reichard.

[Nick Eicher]

And I'm Nick Eicher. Good morning.

[Mary Reichard]

Now news. Here's Kent.

[Kent Covington]

Covenant activists say Iran's crackdown on nationwide protests has now killed well over 500 people with thousands more detained as demonstrations stretch into a third week. A U. S. Based human rights group reports more than 10,000 arrests and says most of those killed were protesters. Iranian born British actress and activist Nazanin Boniadi says the protests started over Iran's struggling economy and plummeting currency.

[David Bonson]

But this time there is no demand other than we want you gone. This time it's unequivocal that what they're.

[Mary Muncie]

Saying is we want this regime gone.

[Kent Covington]

Demonstrations continued Sunday in Tehran and other major cities. Iranian officials warned that U.S. or Israeli forces could become targets if outside powers intervene. President Trump is warning Cuba to strike a deal with the United States after the ouster of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro. Cuba has long relied on Venezuelan oil, but shipments have stopped as US Forces seize tankers and move to control Venezuela's exports. In a social media post, Trump said Cuba benefited from Venezuelan oil and money in exchange for security support, but said that arrangement is over. He urged Havana to make a deal without going into detail. Cuban leader Miguel Diaz Camel fired back online blaming U.S. sanctions for Cuba's deepening economic crisis.

[David Bonson]

Get out.

[Kent Covington]

Protesters screaming in Minneapolis days after an immigration enforcement agent shot and killed a woman who federal officials say tried to hit him with her vehicle. U.S. house Majority Whip Tom Emmer of Minnesota is accusing the state's Democratic governor Tim Walls of fomenting unrest.

[David Bonson]

Tim Walls should have come out right away and said, everybody be calm, withhold your judgment. We know that this is a very sensitive matter. Let law enforcement do their work.

[Kent Covington]

But Democrats say the Trump administration's crackdown on illegal immigration is to blame. Newly released cell phone video is adding fresh detail to the shooting of Renee Nicole Good. The video shows Goode apparently moving her vehicle back and forth as agents try to get around her. Federal officials say the footage supports their claim that Good was interfering with the operation and posed a threat. But Minnesota Democrats say the video shows her trying to leave, not attack anyone. Two months after ending the longest government shutdown in US History, Congress is staring down the barrel at another potential shutdown. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said he's hopeful that there's enough common ground to avoid that. Let's do the basic things that the.

[Nick Eicher]

American people expect, and funding the government.

[David Bonson]

Is one of those, and I'm hopeful.

[Nick Eicher]

That we'll have some cooperation from Democrats.

[Kent Covington]

The stopgap funding bill passed back in November only keeps the bills paid through the end of this month. At the center of last year's 43 day shutdown was a demand by Democrats that Republicans agree to extend Obamacare subsidies. The House just passed a bill agreeing to do just that. But the Senate is still deciding how to proceed on healthcare spending. NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman says he believes the United States can land astronauts on Mars in the years ahead. President Trump has repeatedly pledged that the US Would become the first country to do that, even saying his administration aims to do it by the end of his second term. And Isaacman says that's the kind of vision that gets everyone excited.

[David Bonson]

I love President Trump's ambitious and achievable vision of American astronauts going to Mars and planning the Stars and Stripes. We've gone to our very close neighbor in the moon. We will return. But to actually set a goal to travel to a planet other than our own for the first time ever is just so inspiring.

[Kent Covington]

SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has expressed his interest in landing humans on Mars and wants to do it as soon as as 2029. I'm Kent Covington. And straight ahead, U.S. immigration judges decide what amounts to persecution to trigger asylum. Plus, the Monday Money beat with David Bonson. This is the world and everything in.

[Nick Eicher]

It's the world and everything in it for this 12th day of January 2026. We're so glad you've joined us today. Good morning. I'm Nick Eich.

[Mary Reichard]

And I'm Mary Reichert. It's time now for legal docket today. Two cases that go to the heart of immigration and civil justice, and they matter well beyond the courtroom. What the court decides will shape asylum climbing, affect the work of advocacy groups and test the authority of a government elected on promises of tighter borders and enforcement. We begin with oral arguments.

[Nick Eicher]

Case one is Urias Orellana v. Bondi. It's about asylum and about how much power federal judges should have to second guess immigration courts. Here's how the attorney for the asylum seeker framed the case. Nicolas Rossellini.

[David Bonson]

Deciding whether undisputed facts qualifies. Persecution under the law involves legal interpretation, not fact finding.

[Mary Reichard]

That distinction is the fulcrum here. We usually think of fact finding as the job of juries or trial judges, and legal interpretation as the work of higher courts. But in this case, the asylum seeker wants federal judges to step in and decide whether the facts already found by immigration courts rise to the legal level of persecution. If they do, he stays.

[Nick Eicher]

Here's the background. Douglas Urias Orellana left El Salvador with his wife and child and entered the US illegally in 2021. Back home, a hitman for a drug trafficker had shot two of Urias Orellana's half brothers and threatened to kill the rest of the family. Urias Orellana moved within El Salvador for a time, but eventually fled north and applied for asylum.

[Mary Reichard]

The immigration judge believed his account, but still denied asylum, ruling that the threats did not meet the legal standard for persecution. And that standard is high. Courts have said persecution must be severe more than threats alone and tied to membership in a protected group. With the home government unable or unwilling to stop it.

[Nick Eicher]

The Justice Department says that judgment call belongs to the immigration system. It argues courts ought to defer to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which heard the case and weighed the evidence firsthand. But Urias Orellana's lawyer says this is not just about facts. It's about how the law defines persecution and who gets to apply that definition. Here's Rossellini again.

[David Bonson]

And courts have repeatedly established auxiliary legal principles on things like sexual violence, religious persecution, economic deprivation, and beyond. The courts did not establish those principles by pondering the term persecution in the abstract. They interpreted the law by applying the persecution standard to particular sets of undisputed facts.

[Nick Eicher]

Rossellini pointing out there is no way to draw a principled line between fact and law here.

[Mary Reichard]

The government disagrees. Here's assistant to the Solicitor General, Joshua dos Santos. Now you'll hear him use the word sicario. He means the hitman.

[David Bonson]

Petitioner appears to have been fine when he moved away from the hometown, and he lived for years in peace in other parts of El Salvador. Then petitioner talks about the threats. But on the other hand, the threats demanded money. So what do you infer from that? Was it just intimidation? Were they even connected with the sicario? I mean, these are all questions of the kind that go to juries. The juries draw inferences they can cut in different directions.

[Nick Eicher]

Justice Sonia Sotomayor pushed back on that, referencing another case.

[David Bonson]

The question was whether those undisputed facts met the standard of persecution, quote, because of political opinion. So I don't see how that's not a mixed question of law and fact.

[Mary Reichard]

Chief Justice John Roberts seemed to favor the opposite view.

[David Bonson]

They're the sort of findings that are we, we typically leave to a district court or another fact finder involving credibility, weighing of facts and all that sort of thing to reach a particular determination. It seems to me a prototypical case for the bia.

[Mary Reichard]

And Justice Elena Kagan seemed to agree with the chief while bemoaning the workload involved should the asylum seeker here win the case.

[David Bonson]

Now, what's going to happen in this case is we're going to have to look at all this evidence, all these facts, and decide whether these threats were indeed that level of menacing. And that sounds like really weighing evidence to me. That sounds really factual.

[Nick Eicher]

The asylum seeker's lawyer summed it up this way, essentially sending up an SOS to please clarify the path.

[David Bonson]

The case law as it is now is a muddle. So I'm not going to pretend that there was some consensus going in our favor, but we don't need to show that.

[Nick Eicher]

So the question for the justices is not whether this man and his family can remain in the US it's how much authority federal judges have to second guess immigration courts. And make no mistake, there is a political angle here, too. Half a dozen advocacy groups filed friend of the court briefs on this one. And each one of those groups is actively involved in pushing the courts to override the executive branch on immigration.

[Mary Reichard]

All right, this last case today also turns on who gets the last word. But this time it's not immigration courts and federal judges. It's state legislatures versus the rules that govern federal courts. And the answer will shape who gets into court at all.

[Nick Eicher]

For patients who believe they were harmed by medical negligence, the stakes are obvious. For doctors and hospitals, it's the cost of defending lawsuits. And for the states that have tort reform to limit malpractice claims, this case is a test of how far tort reform can reach.

[Mary Reichard]

The case is Burke v. Choy. Harold Burke is a Florida man who was staying in his second home in Delaware when when he suffered a foot and ankle injury. He went to the emergency room and says he received negligent medical treatment. That made matters worse, he filed a medical malpractice suit in federal court under what is called diversity jurisdiction. That's A federal rule that lets you file a case in federal court when the parties are from different states and enough money is at stake.

[Nick Eicher]

But Delaware requires something extra in medical malpractice cases, an affidavit of merit. That's a sworn statement from a medical expert that certifies the claim is reasonable. More than half the states have that rule.

[Mary Reichard]

Burke's orthopedist declined to make that affidavit. So Burke just submitted his medical records instead. But in Delaware, no affidavit, no case. So the federal court dismissed Burke's lawsuit.

[Nick Eicher]

And it did so on the basis that the affidavit rule is considered substantive law. That's different from procedural law. Things like how to file a lawsuit and when substantive law is about what you're legally entitled to, like the standard of medical care. And that difference matters here. Because substantive state law applies in federal court.

[Mary Reichard]

Burke wants that affidavit requirement gone. Delaware insists on it. Burke's lawyer, Andrew Tutt, that requirement conflicts.

[David Bonson]

With more than a half dozen federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It conflicts with rules eight and nine, which set forth what a plaintiff must do to state a claim in federal court. And it conflicts with Rule 11, which bars verification affidavit requirements unless a federal rule or statute provides otherwise.

[Mary Reichard]

Tutt went even further. The doctors call Delaware's rule substantive.

[David Bonson]

But Delaware's law is procedural from tip to tail. It designates when a complaint can be docketed, what it must say, and when the defendant must file a responsive pleading. It doesn't define malpractice or alter any substantive standard of care. This is a procedural law.

[Nick Eicher]

The medical providers disagree. Obviously, they want the affidavit rule to stay because it is an obstacle to filing a lawsuit against them. The provider's lawyer is Frederick Jaeger. He says the petitioner Burke, the injured man, is taking an extreme position that.

[David Bonson]

A federal court must ignore the entirety of a state statute if any part of it might conflict with a federal rule in some case. This court has rejected that approach, which is why petitioner in the briefing effectively concedes that to prevail, he has to convince the court to overrule at least three of its decisions.

[Nick Eicher]

Now, in this complex case, there was a light moment, if you can call it that. Justice Samuel Alito invoked a famous idea from physics, Schrodinger's cat. And for an explanation, we turn to a movie from 2013, the movie Coherence, in which actor Hugo Armstrong plays a character who explains the concept.

[David Bonson]

Well, it's a thought experiment.

[Kent Covington]

There's a There's a cat in a.

[David Bonson]

Box that has like a 50, 50 chance of living because there's a vial of poison that's also in the box. So regular physics would say that it's.

[Kent Covington]

One or the other, that the cat is either alive or dead.

[David Bonson]

But quantum, quantum physics says that both realities exist simultaneously, and it's only when you open the box that they collapse into a single event.

[Nick Eicher]

All right. And so now with that background, you will understand constitutional law that much better.

[Kent Covington]

I don't know that we've ever invoked.

[David Bonson]

Schrodinger's cat in our analysis of statutes or rules, but what are you saying is, is the affidavit amid merit a pleading for purposes? We've got Rule 8 and Rule 11. Is it a pleading for one and not a pleading for the other?

[Mary Reichard]

So it's up to the justices to open up that box and see if the cat or pleading or affidavit is alive or dead. If the court upholds the affidavit requirement, then states can impose higher pleading requirements on federal courts and just call them something else. That raises costs for plaintiffs, but doctors argue it smokes out meritless claims. So here, as in that asylum case, a seemingly simple question who decides the rules and who must defer to whom?

[Nick Eicher]

Before we go, one decision, the Supreme Court's first opinion of the term in an argued case. It's Beau v. United States. Michael bowe serving a 24 year federal prison sentence, including 10 years for using a gun and in what the law calls a crime of violence. Later court rulings narrowed the definition of crime of violence and Beau asked to have his sentence reduced.

[Mary Reichard]

But lower court said no to that, pointing to a rule that generally blocks repeat challenges to prison sentences. But that rule applies to state prisoners, not federal ones.

[Nick Eicher]

In a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court agreed, with Beau, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joining the court's liberals to say the state prisoner rule does not apply to federal inmates. And if Congress wants to change it, it'll have to do that itself.

[Mary Reichard]

And that's this week's legal docket.

[Kent Covington]

Additional support comes from Ambassadors Impact Network, where investors collaborate on due diligence to fund faith companies and venture funds. Ambassadorsimpact.com from his words Abiding in you, a podcast where listeners memorize Bible verses in each episode. His words Abiding in you on all podcast apps and from Rich Haven Camp in North Carolina and Iowa. Summer camp registration open [e-mail].

[Mary Reichard]

Coming up next on the World and everything in it. The Monday Money beat.

[Nick Eicher]

Time now to talk business markets and the economy with financial analyst and advisor David Bonson. David heads up the wealth management firm, the Bonson Group, and he is here now. Good morning to you, David.

[David Bonson]

Well, good morning, Nick. Good to be with you.

[Nick Eicher]

Well, David, the housing story moved from the business pages last week to the front pages. President Trump saying he wants to ban large institutional investors from buying single family homes. The White House framing this as an affordability move, arguing that big pools of capital have crowded out ordinary buyers. Treasury Secretary Scott Besant was at the Economic Club of Minnesota last week. The question came up there, and let's listen now to a bit of what he had to say.

[David Bonson]

Bygones are bygones. We're not going to have a forced sale here.

[Nick Eicher]

So this is not retroactive.

[David Bonson]

It's all perspective. And as someone who is in markets for 40 years, markets are made on the margin. And so we're pushing out the marginal buyer. So we haven't decided on the exact contours of this. We want to keep the traditional mom and pop owners in, but you want to keep families who rent out to their other family members. So we will decide what the correct level is. Is it a dozen homes? Is it two dozen? What makes you an aggregator?

[Nick Eicher]

So the questioner followed up and pointed out the White House is aligning itself with Senator Elizabeth Warren. She's the progressive Democrat from Massachusetts who is a regulator's regulator. And all Besant could do was shrug it off and make a joke about it, saying, even a squirrel that has to wear glasses finds an acorn once in a while. So, David, walk us through this slowly. Did these marginal buyers, as Secretary Besant says, drive housing prices up and will driving them out lower those housing prices?

[David Bonson]

Well, they most certainly did not. And it is incredibly easy to empirically establish that three of the markets that have had some of the biggest home price appreciation in America, Bend, Oregon, Providence, Rhode island and San Jose, California, have zero institutional ownership. Three of the worst performing markets had the highest institutional ownership. To the extent we're talking about total institutional ownership, people that own over 1,000 homes. And this is including multifamily, which what the President and Secretary Bessen is not including. So there's more institutional ownership in apartment buildings, and they're not even including. They're not even talking about that. But in single family, it is 0.4% of the housing stock. Now, some will say, no, you can't look at it in terms of total ownership because the marginal buyer is the new buyer. Okay, well, the New buyer at the peak year was 3%. And you look at the largest institutional owner, a company called Blackstone, which is repeatedly confused with BlackRock and makes for all kinds of fallacious statements on social media. But that's a pretty understandable mistake to make once it's regrettable when people double down on it. Blackstone owns 0.06%, about 60 to 63,000 homes through conduits and subsidiaries in a country of 85 million homes. So we're talking about something that is not remotely rational. But I will start with the basic idea that if it were true, that people buying at scale pushes prices up. It is not Secretary Bessen or President Trump's or President Biden's or the next president's business. When he says we have to pick with the contours, like do we want them to allow 20 homes or 100 homes? That is called central planning. There is not a buyer forcing a transaction, whether it's from a mom and pop seller or an institution. There are two sides to every transaction. The market is made where buyers and sellers together agree on a price. And I think we should be horrified at the idea of the government having an opinion whatsoever as to who a seller is allowed to sell to. This doesn't just affect the institutional owners, it affects the private parties that now are being told, you can't sell your home to someone who owns 100 other homes. If we're concerned about affordability, this is the best argument. Why in the world would we want to take out one of the rare people bringing new supply to market? Being told you're not going to be allowed to make a market here disincentivizes production. It is understandable that politically the President wants to address affordability. You and I have discussed affordability countless times on this podcast. It's a very important issue. But we cannot turn to the left's playbook out of political desperation. You do not generate the right solutions. We all were very critical, understandably and justifiably of Vice President Harris's idea of I'm going to give subsidize down payments to first time homebuyers. Well, it would help the first time homebuyer, and then it ends up getting priced in and so forth. Taking buyers out of a market is distortive. Now, there's also a tremendous economic confusion here. People say, well, look, there's a pretty fair amount of institutional buyers that came into Charlotte, North Carolina and the prices went up in Charlotte. Did the prices go up because institutional buyers came in? Or did institutional Buyers come in because they believed the prices were going to go up because it was an attractive market with good fundamentals, good wage growth, good job growth, good schools and low crime and all the other things that matter. There's so many factuals that prove my point here and counterfactuals that disprove the other. It's a very discouraging conversation. But ultimately the reason Warren and Sanders and Mamdani have been behind this for so long is it is class rhetoric. It's class warfare rhetoric. It makes it sound like there's some big bad institution causing the problem. And it takes our eyes off the ball. Nick, we need new housing stock getting built. What is the government doing to state, local, federal, whatever the case may be? What are the issues that are keeping us from building the right amount of housing supply? That's what we should be focused on. And I think these issues keep us from having that important discussion.

[Nick Eicher]

Well, David, the other point that Besant made in Minneapolis beyond what we just heard was historical and tax related. He said that institutional buyers really entered the single family market around the time of the great financial crisis, that they were the ones who had liquidity to do it. And he argued that they have a tax advantage. Things like depreciation and expensing in ways that ordinary families don't. Do you see that as a real distortion or is that just the way business taxation works across the economy?

[David Bonson]

Yeah, last I checked, we didn't write the tax laws, they did. First of all, that is barely true with single family at all. It's almost entirely about multiple multifamily. And the institutions did not come in at the time of the financial crisis. They were also liquidity starved as well. They came in earlier, but it wasn't right at the point of 0809. The whole point, Nick, was no one was coming in then. There was no market. And when the market started to come back in 11 and 12 and 13, it's because there were people willing to put capital in. You know who wouldn't put capital in were banks because of Dodd Frank, because of all the legislation and regulation that we did after the crisis. Now there also was no capital going in because the market was overbuilt, oversupplied and under demanded. So the supply demand equilibrium was different then. Now it's come the other way. But we can turn the assembly lines back on for widgets very quickly. Houses take a while. And if it weren't for some institutional capital, a multi family, we would be in a very, very precarious position. But to the extent he's talking about single family, it's just such a tiny, tiny amount that came in. Now, by the way, an individual with six homes, I've owned plenty of investment property personally through LLC I can get the depreciation. So the fact that institutions benefit from it and an individual doesn't, it's an apples to oranges argument. Individuals can get tax deductibility for construction, for investment real estate and benefit from depreciation if they're in the real estate business against their ordinary income. So I really believe that we're looking here to try to create a boogeyman for something that is the Absolutely. We're looking in the wrong direction.

[Nick Eicher]

So it seems though that we're looking for a bogeyman because affordability feels scary and very real to a lot of people and that's why these ideas may find a willing audience. David, is there something that Washington, you think could do right now that it's refusing to do that would actually make homes more affordable?

[David Bonson]

Well, Washington can use the bully pulpit to try to get states to let up on their burdensome restrictions. Most zoning and permitting and cca, the environmental restrictions, most of these things are at a state, county, local level. And Washington could try to use its bully pulpit to do some of that. But the problem here is that we're all talking about stimulating demand. And this will get to another issue of what the President did this week was stating he wants Fannie and Freddie to buy $200 billion of mortgage bonds. Now these are all mortgage bonds that already have mortgages in them that are already originated. The home is already built, the home is already bought and the borrower took a mortgage and then a bunch of those mortgages got bundled together and put into a bond and Fannie and Freddie create those bonds, securitize those mortgages so that banks get the risk of the mortgage off their balance sheet and then it frees up liquidity for them to go do more lending. That's always been the idea of Fannie and Freddie and now the Fannie and Freddie are very well capitalized and the President is ordering them because they're under his property purview, because they're still in conservatorship from the 2008 failure to buy $200 billion. But here's my question. What happens now as all these bonds get bought and there's more liquidity going to banks and other lenders to then go out and buy more. And theoretically, because there's all these non price sensitive buyers, this is basically Quantitative easing. But instead of the Fed doing it, it's the federal government doing it. As rates come lower, that stimulates demand. Right. There's now more people wanting to buy because the mortgage cost has come down because of a governmental intervention and distortion. But there's no new supply for them to buy. So higher demand and lower or the same supply, what does that do to prices? It pushes prices higher. It gets priced in. Just like Kamala Harris's idea of subsidizing a down payment. So you can't stimulate demand and not supply and solve your problem because it will end up being reflected in the price equilibrium. And so what it is is a case where you asked, what can Washington do? And I might suggest we could very well be in a position where instead of don't just stand there, do something, maybe we need to say to Washington, don't just do something, stand there.

[Nick Eicher]

Yeah. So, David, there are a couple of other areas where the administration is talking about doing something instead of just standing there. One thing that caught my attention this week is the President's openness to putting a cap on credit card interest rates. We talked about this during the Biden years. It was a couple of years ago, I remember. And at the time, you made the point that it would likely deny credit to lower income borrowers and would end up hurting the very people that it's meant to help. So I assume your view on that has not changed simply because a Republican president is now embracing the idea.

[David Bonson]

Well, and he actually used the exact same number that was in Bernie Sanders bill that they literally put before the Senate 11 months ago. And of course, it didn't go anywhere, but he said, oh, credit cards are making plenty of money. The banks that issue these credit cards, I want to limit it at 10%. And the issue here is, once again, it's what we refer to in economics, Nick, as the piety myth. The idea that something is okay if it has good intentions. This may very well have good intentions, but it does not have good consequences because there is a certain pool of people that have a lower income and troubled credit history and might be good borrowers now, but they're in an overall risk pool where the credit card companies are going to have a certain level of defaults from people in this bracket and they have to price that risk accordingly. Now, if they have to issue the credit card below that price of risk, what do they do? They don't give them the credit card. And what are the people who need credit desperately but can't get the credit card due? They go to loan sharks. They go to these other various much higher cost, unregulated elements of providing short term credit and liquidity. So it is again a governmental intrusion that does more harm than good. And I will say for the world listeners, I do end up saying this more than I wish I had to. I am not picking on the president here. I'm only talking about the policies objectively. And if anything, one of the reasons I feel like I could be more critical is because the president in his general policy portfolio about deregulation, the way he understands supply and demand energy, he says, I want to bring energy prices down and I want to do that by promoting more supply. He gets it with energy, so why do we not get it with housing and with the financial markets and these other areas? So in a sense it's a compliment to the president that is forcing me to be critical because I think there's a certain inconsistency here. But there's a number of these policy issues that are very troubling. And the element, longer term, I don't think any of this is going to happen besides the Fannie Freddie deal now in a future administration or when a Mayor Mamdani in New York City or a blue state governor or someone else who does have the authority to do it comes along and says let's ban this, let's do this, let's regulate that, some of these same things. What is the conservative opposition going to be against some of these things? When are people on the right sometimes promoting it? We really, I think, have to be careful here to maintain that integrity, that consistency and ultimately that moral authority.

[Nick Eicher]

All right. David Bonson, founder, managing partner and chief investment officer of the Bonson Group. We did intend, of course, to discuss some of the key issues that you raised in your annual white paper on the economy. But the news had different ideas, just prevented us from getting to that. I do hope we're able to next week. But in the meantime you can read it for yourself. It's published [e-mail] it's up there. Just head over and you'll find it. David, thank you again and we will see you next week.

[David Bonson]

Thanks so much, Nick.

[Nick Eicher]

Good morning. This is the World and everything in it from Listener supported World Radio. I'm Nick Iger.

[Mary Reichard]

And I'm Mary Reinkard. Up next, the world history book. Taking down a dictator. The capture of Venezuela's Nicolas Maduro has sparked comparison to another US operation to capture a fugitive from justice, General Manuel Noriega, then the leader of Panama back.

[Nick Eicher]

In 1989, Noriega, like Maduro, faced drug trafficking charges in the US and Noriega, like Maduro, was taken into custody. January 3rd, Maduro, this January 3rd, Noriega, 36 years ago. Here's, here is world reporter Mary Muncie.

[Mary Muncie]

On December 17, 1989, 20 year old Corporal Jeff Teagues was getting ready to go home and marry his high school sweetheart.

[David Bonson]

That's when the phone call came.

[Mary Muncie]

The wedding would have to be postponed. Teagues and his fellow Rangers had to get to base.

[David Bonson]

I had no idea where we were going, so we were getting our kit together. You know, it's packing your bags, loading ammunition, getting all your gear put together.

[Mary Muncie]

The next day they turned on the news.

[David Bonson]

It said, you know, the 82nd Airborne and the Ranger Regiment is preparing to.

[Mary Muncie]

Invade Panama to take General Manuel Noriega. He had worked with American intelligence forces under previous Panamanian leaders. But US Officials had warned for years about his monopoly on power and involvement in drug trafficking. In 1989, he annulled an election to keep himself in power. Then his forces attacked his opponents. From a White House press briefing about the operation.

[David Bonson]

The situation in Panama under General Noriega has reached a crisis.

[Mary Muncie]

This, combined with the looming 1990 deadline to appoint a Panamanian to lead the Panama Canal, pushed leaders over the edge. The US Refused to hand such a strategic asset to a regime it no longer trusted. Over the next few days, Teagues safety briefings went from they don't know we're coming. This is where you'll land. To they know we're coming. Here's how to get past the extra fortifications. Although Teagues and his squad had gotten alerts before, they'd never actually deployed.

[David Bonson]

But once we got to the airfield and all of the ammunition was laid out was when I realized, oh, this is, this is real.

[Mary Muncie]

They boarded a plane and got ready to jump into a massive operation.

[David Bonson]

I jumped out of aircraft and there's a, like a, there's a, there's an A10 jet right there. And I was like, what?

[Mary Muncie]

The red and green tracers were flying through the air.

[David Bonson]

I had to remind myself, like what, what color are our tracers? Like, who's, who are the good guys?

[Mary Muncie]

The good guys are red. Teagues hit the ground in the Panama airport. Then he and his team started clearing their targets. Some 20,000 other American troops were also involved. A few hours Later, President George H.W. bush addressed the nation and told Americans why years of diplomacy had come to an end.

[David Bonson]

Last Friday, Noriega declared his military dictatorship to be in a state of war with the United States and publicly threatened the lives of Americans in Panama.

[Mary Muncie]

And the tensions had turned violent. Just 24 hours after Noriega's declaration, Panamanian forces killed a U.S. marine and brutalized another American officer and his wife. Combined with Noriega's federal drug trafficking indictments in Florida, the White House acted.

[David Bonson]

Key military objectives have been achieved. Most organized resistance has been eliminated. But the operation is not over yet. General Noriega is in hiding.

[Mary Muncie]

For four days Noriega eluded the manhunt, slipping through safe houses across Panama City. By Christmas Eve, he resurfaced, seeking asylum inside the Vatican's embassy. But the US wasn't about to storm the sovereign territory of the Holy See. So the Army's 4th Psychological Operations Group used a different kind of pressure. They surrounded the compound with high powered loudspeakers atop Humvees and began a musical assault. About 10 days later, Noriega had heard enough.

[Nick Eicher]

Undercut cover of darkness, US helicopters take General Manuel Noriega from the Vatican Embassy in Panama.

[David Bonson]

Less than 24 hours after he surrendered in Panama, Manuel Noriega has been arraigned in a Miami court on drug charges.

[Mary Muncie]

The President addressed the nation again.

[David Bonson]

We are now engaged in the final stages of a process that includes the economic and political revitalization of this important friend and Neighbor, Panama.

[Mary Muncie]

The US reported that 23Americans were killed in the invasion and about 300 Panamanian civilians and combatants were also killed.

[David Bonson]

And I want to express the special thanks of our nation to those servicemen who were wounded and to the families of those who gave their lives. A free and prosperous Panama was will.

[Kent Covington]

Be an enduring tribute.

[Mary Muncie]

Corporal Teagues spent a few more weeks helping to dismantle Noriega's regime. Then he went home and finally got to marry his high school sweetheart. American officials installed the previously elected Panamanian leaders into office. Then US teams started streamlining the economic and political system.

[David Bonson]

We set up a displaced camp and started feeding people.

[Mary Muncie]

At the time, Andrew Natsios was part of the U.S. agency for International Development. He went to Panama right after the US took control. Bush set aside about $2 billion for the long term reconstruction of the country.

[David Bonson]

We had a very productive relationship there. The country had developed so much that it was a middle class democracy. There was no need for an aid mission. And so about 10 years ago they closed the aid mission.

[Mary Muncie]

The per capita income in Panama has tripled and there have been elected officials running the country since. Operation Just cause was completed 36 years ago this month. That's this week's world history book. I'm Mary Muncie.

[Nick Eicher]

Tomorrow, how the US Military playing catch up with Chinese technology. And an interview with US Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee. That and more tomorrow. I'm Nick Eicher.

[Mary Reichard]

And I'm Mary Reichard. The world and everything in it comes to you from World Radio. World's mission is biblically objective journalism that informs, educates and inspires. The Bible says the words of the Lord are pure words, like so many refined in a furnace on the ground purified seven times. You, O Lord, will keep them. You will guard us from this generation forever. On every side the wicked prowl, as vileness is exalted among the children of man. Psalm 12, verses 6, 7, 8. Go now in grace and peace.

[David Bonson]

Sam.