Back paddling on the tariffs without any concessions is more damaging the tariffs themselves. It shows the leadership is uninformed and the economy is very weak. Way to flash your weak hand in the first round.
Like, that's the part that annoys me about him more than anything else, how he's convinced a lot of people that he's "good at business". He's not; if he had just dumped the money his father left him into basically any index fund between the 1970's until 2016, he would have made more money than he had in 2016.
Any idiot can basically match the S&P500, just buy VOO or SPY or something, so I don't consider you a "good" businessman if you don't beat the S&P.
So it doesn't surprise me that he is uninformed and doesn't know how to negotiate.
Did he personally go bankrupt 6 times or did smaller LLCs that own buildings or groups of real estate go bankrupt? Because I think the latter is par for the course if you do enough real estate.
EDIT: Just fact checking this, it's the latter, 6 entities went bankrupt. It looks like the trump organization has 500 entities, so 1.2% bankruptcy rate.
As far as I understand, he did not personally go bankrupt 6 times, but it is his pet projects that go bankrupt [1]. The accountants and money managers deal with any actual profitable businesses.
>> if he had just dumped the money his father left him into basically any index fund between the 1970's until 2016, he would have made more money than he had in 2016
Some investors actually spend money in addition to investing it.
If you earn a high return on your investments every year and then go out and spend the returns on things like a $100 million private jet and a $25 million helicopter instead of reinvesting them, you don't beat the S&P. Does that mean you are a "bad" businessman? To me, to determine if someone is a good businessman, you need to look at what they took out and spent along with what they ended up with.
Not every rich investor is someone like Charlie Munger, who weeks before his death at the age of 99 was upset that if he had worked harder, he "might have had multiple trillions instead of multiple billions". Some people make money to spend money.
Yeah, apparently he's talked about "negotiating down the national debt"? [1]
How the fuck would that even work? Would he just tell all the Americans holding treasury bills that they're only going to get half of their money back? I think that would completely erode any confidence in the US economy, both domestically and internationally.
Well one of the reasons we can be so spendthrift in this country is our financing rates staying so low despite massive amounts of debt. This is due to confidence by global investors and asset managers in the US's economy and ability to pay back its debts.
The US can try to renegotiate or not pay, but that's an overt signal to investors that the US is not reliable and will result in the 10-year Treasury bond rate soaring, probably permanently, which will decimate our country's credit and is an own goal that we probably wouldn't be able to come back from economically.
> The US can try to renegotiate or not pay, but that's an overt signal to investors that the US is not reliable and will result in the 10-year Treasury bond rate soaring
The 10 year rate is not a force of nature. It is set at auction by investors who believe US t-bonds are a safer resting place than those of the economies that were destroyed by the nukes.
No, it’s like 1/3 foreign, 1/3 domestic, 1/3 the Fed and other money moving between federal agencies.
Presumably the latter would be a wash. Then of the domestic holdings, a big chunk is state and city holdings. Institutional
investors would be mad. Citizens with saving bonds and/or money tied up in t-bills thanks to reddit are a tiny fraction.
Even still, if we assume that the fed is a wash, that suggests that half of the remainder is domestic. I don't think that the orange idiot would start nuking the US. Oh god, I really hope that he's not quite that stupid.
