President Trump

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

It’s not exactly the brightest to use dispersions instead of aspersions…

Yeah, wrong noun. Rookie error.

I've edited it now.

 

[WT86]

Sick and tired of articles and Americans claiming this isn’t them . Yes it is you fucking morons , you voted him twice , the opposition to him and his acolytes was non existent. A country of gutless fuckers , hang your heads in shame .

Bit precious from someone responsible for the likes of Johnson and Truss, the anti-migrant riots, Brexit, etc.

 

[fulabeer]

Bit precious from someone responsible for the likes of Johnson and Truss, the anti-migrant riots, Brexit, etc.

In fairness, Truss was never elected.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

In fairness, Truss was never elected.

She was, albeit by a small cohort of elderly racists.

 

[WT86]

In fairness, Truss was never elected.

Fair, but if I follow his logic, individual citizens of a country are responsible for their leaders whether they voted for them or not.

 

[TinFoilHat]

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

The Treasury just declared the U.S. insolvent. The media missed it | Fortune

The Government Accountability Office can't even verify the books. Here's what Congress must do.

fortune.com

Wait...What...?

Not content with bankruptcy in his own businesses he's done the closest to it as President of his country.

This is a rather silly article that neglects to discuss that liabilities are long term whereas taxing ability of the government to bring in revenue for debt service and budget obligations happens annually based on corporate/personal receipts, meaning it’s well-nigh impossible for assets (like receivables) to ever exceed liabilities, and thus “equity” (what determines “solvency”) will always be negative when measured like this. Granted the debt levels themselves plus the off-balance sheet unfunded liabilities from things like Social Security are in aggregate staggering, but that’s been an issue long before Trump. Moreover, the article then shifts to imagining the annual receipts vs expenditures calculus ala a household “budget” which has nothing to do with the “value” of assets and liabilities but with whether or not we run — and add to or subtract from — a budget deficit annually. We haven’t run a budget surplus since 2001. The reason the press didn’t “pick up” this “story” is because it isn’t a story. A government that can tax and print money can’t really be “insolvent”, though certainly a lot of big, big problems can be created by the need to service debt (just like a football club).

 

[NPBlue]

This is a rather silly article that neglects to discuss that liabilities are long term whereas taxing ability of the government to bring in revenue for debt service and budget obligations happens annually based on corporate/personal receipts, meaning it’s well-nigh impossible for assets (like receivables) to ever exceed liabilities, and thus “equity” (what determines “solvency”) will always be negative when measured like this. Granted the debt levels themselves plus the off-balance sheet unfunded liabilities from things like Social Security are in aggregate staggering, but that’s been an issue long before Trump. Moreover, the article then shifts to imagining the annual receipts vs expenditures calculus ala a household “budget” which has nothing to do with the “value” of assets and liabilities but with whether or not we run — and add to or subtract from — a budget deficit annually. We haven’t run a budget surplus since 2001. The reason the press didn’t “pick up” this “story” is because it isn’t a story. A government that can tax and print money can’t really be “insolvent”, though certainly a lot of big, big problems can be created by the need to service debt (just like a football club).

Eh?

English is my language but I haven't a bloody clue what all that corporate shitspeak means.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

Eh?

English is my language but I haven't a bloody clue what all that corporate shitspeak means.

Ok. This won’t be a very good analogy but I’ll try!

Just think about the U.S. as having the rags’ debt but Preston North End’s players and stadium. The debt level is far higher than the players and stadium are worth.

But the debt never really has to be paid back — just the interest payments need to get made — because when the debt comes due the club borrows new debt to pay off the old debt or goes even further into debt by taking new borrowings — and the club makes enough every year to cover the interest payments and pay players and staff but loses money every year too.

But now imagine that any time PNE wants, they can raise ticket prices or cut costs or add seats to its stadium . . . but they don’t for fear of fans and players squawking.

This club isn’t really insolvent. It just loses money. But because the club can always increase its debt as long as it makes enough money each year to pay the interest on the debt, and can raise prices (taxes) or cut costs (budget) or add seats to the stadium (print money) when it wants, and everyone knows it, including the debtholders, the club lives on.

 

[Blue Maverick]

Bit precious from someone responsible for the likes of Johnson and Truss, the anti-migrant riots, Brexit, etc.

Ye but in their defense they didn’t start illegal wars, kill their own citizens, make billions off the back of screwing with the rest of the world, commit crimes, but apart from that they are very similar.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Ok. This won’t be a very good analogy but I’ll try!

Just think about the U.S. as having the rags’ debt but Preston North End’s players and stadium. The debt level is far higher than the players and stadium are worth.

But the debt never really has to be paid back — just the interest payments need to get made — because when the debt comes due the club borrows new debt to pay off the old debt or goes even further into debt by taking new borrowings — and the club makes enough every year to cover the interest payments and pay players and staff but loses money every year too.

But now imagine that any time PNE wants, they can raise ticket prices or cut costs or add seats to its stadium . . . but they don’t for fear of fans and players squawking.

This club isn’t really insolvent. It just loses money. But because the club can always increase its debt as long as it makes enough money each year to pay the interest on the debt, and can raise prices (taxes) or cut costs (budget) or add seats to the stadium (print money) when it wants, and everyone knows it, including the debtholders, the club lives on.

The UK legal definition of an insolvent company is:

1. Not being able to pay its debts when they are due and/or
2. Where its net liabilities exceed its net assets

The US is definitely not insolvent based on 1. as it hasn’t defaulted on any loans/bonds and in terms of 2. the overall value of assets in the US is significantly more than the US debt, as eye wateringly high as that latter figure is.

The debt vs GDP figure is a different matter though, but then most of us owe more than we earn in a year!

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Ye but in their defense they didn’t start illegal wars, kill their own citizens, make billions off the back of screwing with the rest of the world, rape women, commit crimes, but apart from that they are very similar.

Defence.

I think it’s (perhaps understandably) difficult for some Americans to grasp how much more profound an impact someone like Donald Trump can have on the rest of the World than someone like Liz Truss in terms of fundamentals to people’s lives such as stability, peace and living standards.

It’s easy to laugh at someone like Liz Truss when it doesn’t impact on your ability, in a faraway land, to put food on the table or even sleep at night worrying about WW3 breaking out, and so it’s simply more straightforward to be dispassionate, or even frivolous about that, than someone who represents a real threat to the wellbeing (financial and mental) of people on another continent.

 

[oldius]

Donald now says that talks have gone well and Iran wants to do a deal.

The problem is that Donald lies to manipulate his electorate and to manipulate the markets for the benefit of his friends and family and the billionaires who donate to the Republican party. Those billionaire friends own the media and employ actors and politicians to create fury against followers of Islam, even demonising them for praying. They fund fake politicians who march with crosses claiming it is a battle for Christianity, turning their personal battle into a battle between good and evil, Christianity Vs Islam. The West then accepts the bombing of Islamic nations but guess who will be given the contracts to rebuild those nations...you guessed it! It is the age of empires, and you will be manipulated because these billionaires own the papers, the TV stations, Facebook, TikTok, X, and more. He does it alongside a man charged with war crimes who leads a nation proclaiming that another symbol of divinity gave them the right to more bombed lands.

I was at the counter-demo in Liverpool on Saturday against the far-right. To see UKIP marching with the crosses, countering sneers with 'you are forgiven, may God bring you peace' statements, was other-wordly. They are as close to God as I am to the money of Elon.

 

[GOULDYBOBS]

These cunts are affecting my mortgage and fuel prices. Let them have their cake and eat it the war mongering twats

 

[Vic]

Ok. This won’t be a very good analogy but I’ll try!

Just think about the U.S. as having the rags’ debt but Preston North End’s players and stadium. The debt level is far higher than the players and stadium are worth.

But the debt never really has to be paid back — just the interest payments need to get made — because when the debt comes due the club borrows new debt to pay off the old debt or goes even further into debt by taking new borrowings — and the club makes enough every year to cover the interest payments and pay players and staff but loses money every year too.

But now imagine that any time PNE wants, they can raise ticket prices or cut costs or add seats to its stadium . . . but they don’t for fear of fans and players squawking.

This club isn’t really insolvent. It just loses money. But because the club can always increase its debt as long as it makes enough money each year to pay the interest on the debt, and can raise prices (taxes) or cut costs (budget) or add seats to the stadium (print money) when it wants, and everyone knows it, including the debtholders, the club lives on.

Not a good analogy at all. That club is insolvent. Who would lend it money? The directors cease to trade and the lenders lose their money.

If no country can ever be insolvent, why do we have to pay any tax at all? Just keep borrowing to pay for everything.

 

[SilverFox2]

Not a good analogy at all. That club is insolvent. Who would lend it money? The directors cease to trade and the lenders lose their money.

If no country can ever be insolvent, why do we have to pay any tax at all? Just keep borrowing to pay for everything.

Man United seem to survive on an increasing debt that seems to be ok as long as they can service that debt.

At what stage do they ever have a problem ie do they wait for the various accounts to show insolvency like a hard working but failing engineering company or does income need to be guaranteed before that year?

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

Not a good analogy at all. That club is insolvent. Who would lend it money? The directors cease to trade and the lenders lose their money.

If no country can ever be insolvent, why do we have to pay any tax at all? Just keep borrowing to pay for everything.

I think you maybe are missing the point. It’s not supposed to be a literal example. Just one written the way a football fan might understand, given that the poster who asked didn’t. Obviously not realistic as PNE can’t “print money” (the analogy being add infinite seats to its stadium in my example).

A government can always fund its interest because it can print money. But of course that drives up inflation which raises rates which means borrowers ask higher interest rates to hold sovereign debt in future, which means you need to print even MORE in an ever-upward spiral to service that debt and so on. That’s where runaway hyperinflation in some nations comes from. So you pay tax so government can service the debt at reasonable prices (rates) as well as pay for the services (costs) the government provides for you also at reasonable prices.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

The UK legal definition of an insolvent company is:

1. Not being able to pay its debts when they are due and/or
2. Where its net liabilities exceed its net assets

The US is definitely not insolvent based on 1. as it hasn’t defaulted on any loans/bonds and in terms of 2. the overall value of assets in the US is significantly more than the US debt, as eye wateringly high as that latter figure is.

The debt vs GDP figure is a different matter though, but then most of us owe more than we earn in a year!

But the assets aren’t. The U.S. government possesses the liabilities but its people and corporations own the vast majority of the assets. It’s the taxable income productive use of those assets provide in the form of future revenue to the U.S. government AND the printing press that are government’s greatest assets — effectively an infinite supply of future revenue or cash flow — or an “endless receivable” — that give investors in U.S. government debt confidence that the U.S. won’t default on the interest payments and eventually pay back the principal.

 

[dickie davies]

Man United seem to survive on an increasing debt that seems to be ok as long as they can service that debt.

At what stage do they ever have a problem ie do they wait for the various accounts to show insolvency like a hard working but failing engineering company or does income need to be guaranteed before that year?

At the moment they are servicing the debt, so the institutions that lent the money are making a profit on the loaned cash
If the rags default, the lenders are covered as the rag bastards are valued at more than the debt

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

At the moment they are servicing the debt, so the institutions that lent the money are making a profit on the loaned cash
If the rags default, the lenders are covered as the rag bastards are valued at more than the debt

Yes. Many multiples of their stated assets-minus liabilities (equity), annoyingly. And that’s why FFP’s focus on making a “profit” annually was so stupidly fucked and clearly aimed at venture capital backed clubs (ie us). Clubs die because they can’t service their debt with cash, not because on an accounting basis they “lose money.” Finance 101.

Why pay more than assets-minus-liabilities? Because a) the club will/should generate cash/earnings in the future that a buyer expects will grow and b) because of “scarcity”, to your point, the buyer believes the multiple someone else will pay for the club in future will be higher than the one he pays today.