Cont: The Trump Presidency X: 10-10 'til we do it again

Status
Not open for further replies.
carlitos said:
Including debt is why "net" is part of a "net worth" calculation.

Net worth = assets - liabilities
Click to expand...
Yes, I should have clarified...

I wonder if they calculated the net worth, whether they included Trump's probable debt/liabilities.

Trump hasn't shown us his tax returns, nor has he given any real evidence what his assets and liabilities actually are. Lots of room for shady transactions or undeclared debts. In other words, what exactly was Forbes using to calculate his assets/debts?
 
theprestige said:
Hmmm... Net worth ultimately comes from two places, right? Investors, or revenues.
Click to expand...
Technically part of Trump's net worth comes from value in the "Trump Brand". A marketable name does have some value that doesn't come from Investors or revenues. Its why people drink Coke rather than "brown colored water with lots of sugar". (I suppose you could consider an increase in brand value as part of revenues if its the result of hard work to "build the brand", but brand names can gain value just by chance too.)

Have the whistleblowers and investigative journalists of the world not looked into this yet? Or have they all tried and failed to get to the Russians at the bottom of it all?
Click to expand...
Probably a combination of illegal transactions that nobody is going to talk about and confidentiality rules on legal transactions make things hard to investigate.

Remember, Manfort went a while with some pretty shady transactions before his crimes were discovered.
 
Segnosaur said:
Yes, I should have clarified...

I wonder if they calculated the net worth, whether they included Trump's probable debt/liabilities.

Trump hasn't shown us his tax returns, nor has he given any real evidence what his assets and liabilities actually are. Lots of room for shady transactions or undeclared debts. In other words, what exactly was Forbes using to calculate his assets/debts?
Click to expand...

I heard a podcast with a guy from Forbes discussing how they do it. Even without tax filings, asset valuation relies on many documents which are public record, like real estate comps and such. As for companies, you can use their earnings and calculate the worth by using comparable price/earnings ratios. Plus many high net worth people are willing to tell all. In the old days, Forbes might even have gotten a call from Trump's publicist "John Barron." :)
 
carlitos said:
I heard a podcast with a guy from Forbes discussing how they do it. Even without tax filings, asset valuation relies on many documents which are public record, like real estate comps and such. As for companies, you can use their earnings and calculate the worth by using comparable price/earnings ratios.
Click to expand...
But the problem is, the Trump Organization is a private organization (rather than a publically traded company), so at least some of that information won't be on public record. (When you have shareholders, you have to let the stockholders know what your company is doing. If you have a single owner reporting rules will differ.)

Plus many high net worth people are willing to tell all. In the old days, Forbes might even have gotten a call from Trump's publicist "John Barron." :)
Click to expand...
And everything Barron said would be confirmed by John Miller.
 
Trump tweets

"Great reviews on the new USMCA. Thank you! Mexico and Canada will be wonderful partners in Trade (and more) long into the future."

"THE ONLY REASON TO VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT IS IF YOU’RE TIRED OF WINNING!"

"“USMCA Wins Praise as a Victory for American Industries and Workers”"
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump tweets

"Great reviews on the new USMCA. Thank you! Mexico and Canada will be wonderful partners in Trade (and more) long into the future."

"THE ONLY REASON TO VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT IS IF YOU’RE TIRED OF WINNING!"

"“USMCA Wins Praise as a Victory for American Industries and Workers”"
Click to expand...


It's always "reviews" with this reality TV Prez.
 
theprestige said:
I'm hard pressed to name one where it isn't.

Do siblings of diplomats get visas if they also claim to be lovers?
Click to expand...
I wondered if this was your lame take.

The challenge comes down to this: name a country where no man is allowed to marry a woman. If you want to be pedantic, I can state it in terms of quantifiers of first order logic. Name a country in which, for all x such that x is a man and for all y such that y is a woman, x cannot marry y.

That is the relevant point, as you well know. You're diddling, sir, and you know it.
 
Garrison said:
And now this is a thing:

Trump: 'Scary and difficult time for young men' in US

Well especially if you are a young black man, but does anyone believe that's who he meant?
Click to expand...

And Native men. And LGBT men. And I could go on, but of course, Dolt 45 considers both groups vaguely subhuman, as he's a white supremacist.

I also note the entire lack of consideration for women.

See, when people discuss white male privilege, this is it in it's purest form. The standard his young men are scared of is the one I'd love to have grown up with.
 
The Trump administration is quietly moving to weaken U.S. radiation regulations, turning to scientific outliers who argue that a bit of radiation damage is actually good for you — like a little bit of sunlight.
Click to expand...

Linky.
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
Linky.
Click to expand...

Yeah but the article is immediately guilty of a bit of misdirection though:

The government’s current, decades-old guidance says that any exposure to harmful radiation is a cancer risk.
Click to expand...

Yeah, harmful stuff tends to harm. But we're exposed to radiation every day, constantly. It's not crazy to think that low-levels of radiation are not harmful. The question is, how much is, and it's not very ethical to test this on humans.
 
Belz... said:
Yeah but the article is immediately guilty of a bit of misdirection though:



Yeah, harmful stuff tends to harm. But we're exposed to radiation every day, constantly. It's not crazy to think that low-levels of radiation are not harmful. The question is, how much is, and it's not very ethical to test this on humans.
Click to expand...
Rather depends on the humans.

I volunteer my students. Most of them pass for human.

I also volunteer Belz..., but have no idea if he passes.
 
Segnosaur said:
All I can say is: Ha ha!

From: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/02/trump-forbes-400-spot-tumbles-as-net-worth-declines.html
President Donald Trump's net worth has declined by more than $1 billion since the year he launched his presidential campaign at the foot of Trump Tower's escalator, Forbes reported Tuesday. The president's net worth stands at $3.1 billion, down from $4.5 billion in 2015...

I'm actually truly surprised. Not that Trump's net worth has declined. After all, much of his net worth is tied to the Trump 'brand', which now appears to be quite toxic. (for example, multiple buildings removing the Trump name). What I'm surprised at his that his net worth is still as high as it is. I can't see any new businesses wanting to associate with Trump (well, maybe a company that makes white sheets for KKK rallies might).

I also wonder if, in their analysis, whether they considered debt. (The suspicion is that Trump is heavily indebted to Russian interests, and his true Net worth could actually be zero.)
Click to expand...

High end New York real estate values have been flat and even falling for the last few years. A great deal of that is the result of huge projects particularly on the West Side like Hudson Yards and Manhattan West.
 
Belz... said:
Yeah, harmful stuff tends to harm. But we're exposed to radiation every day, constantly. It's not crazy to think that low-levels of radiation are not harmful.
Click to expand...

Basically it's the difference between California Cancer and Cancer everywhere else.
 
What an incredible guy. A millionaire by the time he was eight!

While The Times was not able to review Trump's personal tax returns — which he has refused to release, breaking with decades of precedent for presidential nominees — it examined "trove of confidential tax returns and financial records." They revealed Trump received at least $413 million in today's dollars from when he was a small child through the present day.

By the time he was 3 years old, Donald Trump was earning $200,000 per year in today's dollars. By the time he was 8 years old, he was a millionaire. Times link
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom