On 10/11/2018 4:13 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 2:22:15 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/10/2018 4:38 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 11:15:28 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/10/2018 12:56 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 7:29:47 AM UTC-7, wrote:
blah
Plus, my point is that Trump used bankruptcy as a way of doing business -- screwing down creditors and discharging debt. Debt default is not an option for the federal government (maybe the Argentina federal government, but not the US), and thinking Trump would be a great president because he was supposedly a great businessman is like thinking a typist will be a great pianist because a piano is just another keyboard. Macro economics, monetary policy and the business of governments is a lot different than putting together some single-asset LLC or corporation to do a real estate deal, even a big real estate deal.


- Jay Beattie.

I'm wondering what court you've ever been in where the business owner with money could get away without paying creditors.


All of them. In a corporate bankruptcy, the several
shareholders' personal assets are not at risk. I lost my 5%
share of a firm which did go belly up in 1985 but I did not
lose my own house over it.

I'm no expert on LLC rules but my understanding is that they
function similarly such that the firm's assets are the limit
of liability


Well that's what I meant of course. But you would normally invest money into a company that would use your money for infrastructure and wages wouldn't you?

I thought you were talking about risk and who pays creditors (if anyone) in the event of a business failure.

Yes, the owner of a start-up has to use personal or investor money to make payroll. The federal government, however, is not a start-up. It does not have some product in the pipeline that is going to explode onto the market and produce revenues sufficient to retire debt and pay-off investors. The only investment income earned by the federal government is on its own debt. It also gets royalties and has some other income streams (apart from taxes), but . . . https://www.politico.com/agenda/stor...iveaway-000645

Anyway, the business of government bears little resemblance to property development.



If any other entity kept books and reported the way the
United States of America does, all its principals would be
tried, convicted and jailed promptly.

Andrew, remember that this isn't some sort of overnight deal. George Washington STARTED this country with a national debt. Most Congresses did nothing but add to that. I think that it was paid off at one time and the tears from the liberals were absolutely endless.

https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-b...ercent-3306296


--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank - those numbers don't look right. I'd have to look them up again but I think that in the "national debt" they are including the "intergovernmental holdings" which is the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. You might say that "intergovernmental holdings" is the "good debt" since it represents money that is paid into the Social Security network.

Had this been handled correctly the Intergovernmental Holdings could have paid the Debt Held By The Public down to zero. But that would have required a Congress that could understand economic good sense.


You can parse the terms or round the (very large) numbers
all you like but the net result is Argentina= bond default
and then on to ignominy and beyond.

Jay's right in that, as I mentioned here last week, it's
been every Congress under every Chief; not a partisan issue.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971