I don’t know what’s in the heart of the people who added student loan debt to the list of debts that are not dischargeable, but when it was done in 1976 the issue was discussed in the congressional record. There are many impacts of student loans being non-dischargeable. Opportunistic or strategic default is one of those. Here is a paperI found that discusses some of the issues. I don’t subscribe to the views in the paper, but offer it as a discussion point.
It seems to me that my statements were straightforward and not hard to understand, so characterizing them as “a terribly poor and transparent tactic” and “some kind of performance art” is downright bizarre.
You asked “Do you think it’s possible to operate differently with different fact patterns or objectives?”. I said I agree, yes, of course it is. I said I agree because I agree. How is that a “a terribly poor and transparent tactic”?
But Trump’s alleged accomplishments are all within the domain of the “fact patterns or objectives” of business, which is not relevant in the domain of public service. You say that his history of bankruptcies “doesn’t matter in this context” and I say fine, so neither does his business success, real or perceived.
My last sentence was an editorial comment expressing my doubts about Trump’s actual abilities even in the business domain, and I thought it was obvious that it was a side comment and not directly a response to you.
Because it’s incongruent with your post #23 which expressed an opposite sentiment. In any case, I don’t know if it’s just me but from my perspective your posting style has changed significantly lately. It’s not one that I’m interested in spending a lot of time responding to.
No, post #23 is not incongruous, it expresses exactly the same sentiment. Post #23 uses the vehicle of sarcasm to convey the assertion that running a business and running a country are radically different things. It was a response to the statement you made which I herewith quote verbatim to avoid the risk of any kind of paraphrasing: “Strategic default is a viable strategy with the right fact pattern. Complex organizations set up multiple corporate entities for the purpose of, among other things, limiting risk. Ever consider what that means? It means bankruptcy is on the table. It can be part of doing business.”
You asked “why should bankruptcies matter?” and then supported that with a defense of bankruptcies as a standard business practice. Fair enough, but also fair that my rhetorical sarcasm was intended to show that one cannot carry out such business practices in running a country. If instead you had said, “why should bankruptcies matter? Running a business and running a country are two different things” I would have agreed with you right there. When you said (in my interpretation) essentially that in #27, I agreed with you then.
As for a “significant change in my posting style”, I don’t see it and certainly there’s no external factor to have precipitated such a change. What I might surmise is that what you’re seeing is specific to the subject matter in the last two threads we have interacted in recently, which deal with the closely related topics of money in politics, poorly informed voters, and the Trump ascendancy. Which, needless to say, I have definite views about. It would be unfortunate if you find my views disagreeable but I think they’re presented fairly and constructively. I can’t control your perceptions.
Poe’s law for post 23 I guess. If you read that as sincere then my point makes more sense. In any case that’s what I mean about style. I can’t tell the difference and I can’t say it’s worth the effort to decipher.
Of course I don’t think bankruptcy should be disallowed. That would be as absurd as trying to legislate the value of pi. If a person has debts that they cannot pay, then they won’t pay them. This has no bearing at all on someone like Trump, who could pay his debts, but decided that it would be convenient not to (well of course).
When Trump’s companies do well, he profits from them. But when they do poorly, it’s his creditors, not him, who take the loss. And people complain about Sanders being the socialist?
You’re ignoring what I said–Trump didn’t have those debts, Trump Casino LLC (whatever it was called) had debts. Trump owns lots of different companies that are legally separate entities, the debts from those aren’t against Trump personally, and one of this owned companies isn’t legally responsible for the debts of another.
So again–do you advocate for unlimited owner’s liability for corporations?
Who gets the profits from all of these? If Trump Casinos LLC had had massive profits instead of losses, would any/all of these other companies have had, e.g., easier access to money?
When what is really a single line of business (real estate development) gets chopped into lots of separate entities, the main purpose seems to be separating profits and losses; profits go to the Donald, losses go to other people.
When you’ve got one big entity into which all profits AND all losses pour, then the concept of unlimited owner’s liability makes sense. Profits are available to offset losses and vice versa, and the net result is a true reflection of the overall business. When it’s split into lots of little entities, though, the net result to Trump (or whoever the common owners are) in no way reflects the overall results of the business, because all of the losses are simply dumped on other people; only the good results flow back to the parent.
Are you imagining that all these casino investors were duped retirees? They laid out a contract as to who was putting what into the business and where profits would go.
The people who really get screwed in a bankruptcy are the people who are owed money, not the investors who put up the initial stake. Bondholders, employees, trade creditors, and others lose out. When did they sign a contract about where profits would go?
Employee wages are generally paid pretty high up in the chain. Bondholders depending on the nature of the bonds are high up as well. Trade creditors not so much, but that’s why they charge a premium to extend credit. No one goes into this blind.
