If he is so damned smart, and so bloody rich, why does he need to do something so cheap and nasty as Trump University? Why con gullible and frightened people with a promise of teaching them how to get rich? For a few thousand dollars each, why does a billionaire need to do that?
Because he needs the money. The cash, the liquidity, the ready necessary. He says his properties are worth billions, and the banks that loaned him the money are happy to concur. But how often is the value of big real estate dependent upon fact and how much is faith? If he actually had to sell one of his golf courses, how likely is it that he could realize enough to pay off his backers and make a handsome profit himself? And if he had to sell them all? Be rather a glut on the market, this website Our Properties lists seventeen golf courses.
However you want to try to frame it, it was his father’s money and credit that financed his ventures and bailed him out every time they failed. That isn’t business acumen or raw talent it’s just gambling with daddy’s money until something finally hits.
As for trying to compare Trump’s loss of almost a billion dollars - his actual physical loss of that much money - to how the ebbs and flows of the economy affect Buffett’s value on paper, as always, you’re completely wrong.
That’s sorta the problem, isn’t it? The republicans treat these tax cuts as though they just have to happen, and pretend that it’s then everyone else’s fault when the deficit skyrockets. Except it isn’t. If the government needs X amount of money to do what the citizens demand that it does, and we slash revenue, it shouldn’t come as a surprise when the deficits go up.
The fact is that because tax cuts are typically made independently of any actual spending cuts (because everyone loves a tax cut, but hates when their services get slashed, and the cowards who keep proposing that we slash taxes on the super-rich can’t bring up the political capital to do so in a revenue-neutral way until they can pretend we’re about to hit some wall), it only makes sense to view it as an expenditure. Tax cuts cost the government a lot of money, and whether you prefer to look at this as the government simply not collecting the money or the government having to spend more money, the end result is the same.
Most of the people on food stamps actually have jobs. Among SNAP households, 80% have someone in them who worked or will work within a year of getting food stamps. Just one example. Part of the problem, of course, is that there are many jobs where you can’t really make a living wage - you can’t make enough to get by as a wal-mart greeter, despite working full time. And yeah, it’s really easy to say “Get a better job”. It’s a lot harder to actually do it. Meanwhile, these “freebies” help keep them off the street, and ensure that their children can survive. But I guess making sure Warren Buffett doesn’t have to pay a 40% federal income tax rate on his billions of dollars is worth that price.
See, that’s sorta the thing. Most modern democracies have figured out that things tend to work better when there’s a bare minimum people can rely on. When there’s a safety net to ensure that people who struggle in life don’t fall through the cracks. And of course, this needs to be paid for - usually by those who have taken advantage of the myriad advantages provided by such a society and done well for themselves. The US isn’t quite there yet for some reason.
To be fair, every time a rich person complains about having to pay their workers too much, that latter statement becomes a little more true. Particularly if it’s Wal-Mart.
No, you really didn’t. Every analysis I’ve seen of Trump’s wealth, like those that say he’d have done better in an index fund, takes both profits and losses into account. It’s the same with Sony Pictures and Warren Buffet; they are judged by both sides of their balance sheets. You are the one who is ignoring half the equation. You tout Trump’s gains and handwave away his losses.
No, the reason is that even with a loss that is, for Berkshire Hathaway, relatively minor, BH has averaged nearly 20% year-on-year growth, double the S&P500 growth rate. BH can well afford an $11 billion hit, and has already more than made it back in 2016. Trump can only manage his setbacks by playing three-card monte with his debts and swindling his investors.
More to the point, if he’s such a great businessman and his business setbacks normal, why do US banks all consider him such a poor business risk that they won’t loan him money anymore?
Speaking of Warren Buffett, a friend recently reminded me of something Buffett said at a lecture he gave about 25 years ago which we both attended. This seems relevant here:
No, no, no, no. The fact is, putting the money in index funds would have generated much more wealth than Trump’s actual decisions. Please try to keep up with the class.
He started off with a free 14 million (let’s use the honest figures, shall we?) and ended up a billion in the hole? Remind me not to trust him with anything important… oh, wait… :eek:
So, spending lots of money on lifestyle is proof of merit? Perhaps our welfare departments should be doing investigations to confirm that only those who prove their deserts by spending the money on Cadillacs and lobster get checks…
A calculation, starting with the actual $14 million amount 50 years ago (1 Jan 1956) and continuing to now (31 Dec 2015) gives a final figure of $22,289,142,308.99 here using the default settings for fund selection and fee disbursements. If I’d invested that much money for that period and ended up with only $4.5 billion, I’d want somebody’s head on a pike.
Since, as everyone knows, index fund managers bury the money in Mason jars in the back yard, never to interact with the economy again.
Just wanted to point out that, as a small business entrepreneur, I cashed out my 401k for about $35k, added to that about $10k I had in savings.
4 years later, I have around 150k in capital, 13 employees, and almost broke half a million in sales last year. My bank just extended my credit line to $75k, of which I barely touch.
If I had started with a million, or if someone just gave me a million right now (and I am talking 2016 million, not the 1975 million that Trumps dad gave him [more like 14 million in 2016]), I would be huge. I would be able to grow nearly exponentially.
They always say, making the first million is the hardest part.
Heard this a lot, but don’t recall ever seeing it verified. You got?
Thing is, in my mind, the banks would be reluctant to undermine his, ah, “credibility” if they already have some money invested, they would want to protect him, not to start any kind of effort to “cash out” and take a loss. So, seems to me that the only bankers who could say that without sweating it would be the one’s who haven’t loaned him any money to begin with. If he borrowed and paid off, they would have a very favorable attitude.
Anyway, seems to me Il Douche’s finances are such a “smoke and mirrors” thing, how could they even know?
Anyway, you got? No snark intended, I don’t do subtle.
Note that Politifact labels the reports (and Carlos Danger’s allegations) “informed speculation” due to the lack of solid evidence (largely because Trump - and banks - keep their financial dealings close to their respective chests).
So that’s what I got. I shall caveat my remarks accordingly in future.
Banks that do not wish to loan to him are more than just banks that have lent and been paid, or banks that have not lent, but there are a number of banks that lent to him, and then had to write off their loan to them when he filed bankruptcy.
I assume that a bank that takes a big hit because the loanee declares themselves insolvent would be reluctant to loan to him in the future.
Trump’s business acumen: Trump bought the Westchester Golf Course in Ossining, NY for $8 million. He put $45 million into it. Trump says it is now worth $1.35 million.
It takes great business skill to lose $50 million on a single investment.
Probably worth noting from the articles I cited above that Trump’s relationship with the main bank that will lend him money has not exactly been smooth sailing either (and is yet another potential conflict of interest to consider).