Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No the S&P 500 wouldn't have beat Trump's growth. As Trump would have had to live off that stock money with an income stream flowing out.
.
Well, who told him to spend money that he doesn't have? Starting with 400 million and making even a basic "over the market" (that's why someone works, right?) gain would give you - for example - maybe 1.5 BILLION within a decade. Back then a high style of life couldn't have cost more than 10 million a year.
If he just was cautious the first decade after getting the full boat inheritance he'd then have had many 10 of million each year to live on without affecting his income much.
Example: You have 400 Million dollars. You are smart. Therefore, you aren't going to go to "work" to make 9-11% or even a little more since you can make that without working. Therefore, you are going to strive for AT LEAST a 15% ROI - just 4 or 5 points above the market for all your corporations and work.
400 Million in a decade with that return is 1.6 BILLION dollars. As you well know, when you have Real Estate corporations much of your "lifestyle" is paid within the company....travel, entertainment, dining and MUCH more. Remember, this is a guy who uses his charity to paint portraits of himself.
OK, so if he had 400 Million in 1980, he's have had 1.6 BILLION....or adjusted down to 1.5 if he spent an "extra" 10's of millions a year to his deductible expenses.
Now, if he made a lifetime ROI of 15%, we'd be up to 100+ BILLION today. Instead, he was at less than one billion when a book about his BS came out and he sued the author and LOST. That was about 2008 I think.
It's hard to imagine that you are saying "Trump spends too much money and wastes too much money so therefore you are wrong in thinking he should have a return". Well, I don't consider spending (wasting) money as being "a good businessman or investor". Plenty of people live high on the hog and don't lose it all.
It wouldn't matter if I cut the aWarremount he inherited (about $420 million) in 1/2.....leaving a separate small pile for his lifestyle. That would still be 50 BILLION by today at 15%
If people think making 15% on an investment enterprise on your own money is too much, the only "base examples" I can give are these:
I have made close to 11% lifetime ROI on passive investments.
There are Real Estate REITS that pay 9% plus or 10% including gains.....that is, one can make that without doing anything.
The Markets tend to make about 10% per year.
Warren Buffet has made 21% per year since the 1960's. He's simply an investor...not "making greatest deals".
Anyway, why do people insist on changing the subject? Are Gold Plated toilet fixtures really that appealing to many that they praise Trump for wasting his money instead of planning for recessions and failure?
Note - there are quite a few mutual funds that have made 12-13% yearly since 1980.
In those years and decades after one could easily place private mortgages that paid 12-15%.
Praising a lifetime return (Trump) of about 6% is a bridge too far - especially when that return itself is based on stealing money from the taxpayers, investors, contractors and banks, etc....
It's not a feature that Food Stamps and other indicators would be lower than the once in a century GWB Great Recession and the resulting mess. Same goes with foreclosures and bankruptcies...not a feature.
If you want to compare food stamps with 1998 you'd at least have some leg to stand on. But I don't see the relevance. The OP asked why TN is 300% or 500% worse TODAY than MA (for example).
That would seem a simple QUESTION, although I understand that the answer isn't as simple or clear. But I think we have some of it.
The "food stamp" thing probably causes more of these bankruptcies...maybe the right celebrates their neighbors in TN or KY going bankrupt? That's the only reason I can imagine people crowing about "less food stamps" when some people are working for 1/2 or 1/3rd of what they were making before the Great Recession.
Except the statement I was responding to was this:
Quote:
I wish LFPR was improving, but its not, and food stamps are nowhere near record low, and neither is gas very cheap. You are being manipulated, as are millions of others who believe the endless repetition of "best economy in history of mankind".
“Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”
Food stamp participation has declined since 2008, 2015, 2016.....thats a good thing. Is it due to a better economy? less unemployment, higher pay, threat of tighter restrictions? Probably.
Nonetheless labor force participation is improving, food stamp participation is falling and gas prices are cheaper than they have been in a long time.
As far as bankruptcy, that seems to have been explained in part about the 4th post in. Much is do to the housing crisis from 2008 and avoiding foreclosure. Its complicated. So the economy has been improving and at a faster pace since 2016 but still recessions take time to overcome. Why the obsession with bankruptcy? cant you be happy that the economy is looking so much better. That unemployment is lowest it been in some time, FS participation is dropping, gas is cheaper, wages are edging up, investments are good.
As far as bankruptcy, that seems to have been explained in part about the 4th post in. Much is do to the housing crisis from 2008 and avoiding foreclosure. Its complicated. So the economy has been improving and at a faster pace since 2016 but still recessions take time to overcome. Why the obsession with bankruptcy? cant you be happy that the economy is looking so much better. That unemployment is lowest it been in some time, FS participation is dropping, gas is cheaper, wages are edging up, investments are good.
Well, "investments" are up 6-7% for 20 years...so there is that.
I agree that Recessions take time to overcome. It's 12 years since, right? How long do you figure they should take to overcome? Maybe we agree on that the Great Recession is/was, at minimum, a 15-20 year event? For many it will be a lifetime defining event somewhat like the Great Depression. It won't be forgotten like some of the other biggies (the S&L thing, etc.).
I asked earlier if anyone watched "American Factory" on netflix since that would seem to explain a lot of the things here. Sure, people are working...for less. So they can't make it. Add the medical bills and "chit happens" and all the other things and the story is told.
It still doesn't clearly explain why a state like TN is so high - unless these places are historically high (for generations) and it's just the way people deal with things.
Putting it simply in context - if the workers in "American Factory" who are making $12 an hour - were making even $15 and had universal health care...let alone if they were making what Germany Auto Makers paid ($60 about - with benefits)......or what they were making in 2008 ($30), then it makes perfect sense that bankruptcies in Ohio might be down.....right?
These stories are not unique to one former GM plant. They have been going on for decades although they went into overdrive after the Great Recession. Desperate people who already are partially through life (and have kids, expenses, etc.) will likely take ANY job at any price even if it doesn't pay a living wage.
Then some people will cheer that they aren't unemployed. But employed people file for bankruptcy also.
Mathguy must know that 50 is 400 plus % greater than 11, etc.....or not!
You have to excuse me. I was in retail and wholesale and importing, etc.
If something cost me $50, it was 500% greater than something that cost $10.
Let me try it on google.....
500% of 10 = 50.
Mathguy needs to explain his math or lack thereof so real math person can understand what he is calculating.
Mathguy was chuckling at when you referred to the OP which was somewhat of a self in 3rd person reference.
Mathguy would not question the numbers in this hillarious thread. When someone makes this big of a turd pie analysis, it's rather a waste of time to ask how long it was cooked and what the other ingredients were.
Well, who told him to spend money that he doesn't have? Starting with 400 million and making even a basic "over the market" (that's why someone works, right?) gain would give you - for example - maybe 1.5 BILLION within a decade. Back then a high style of life couldn't have cost more than 10 million a year.
If he just was cautious the first decade after getting the full boat inheritance he'd then have had many 10 of million each year to live on without affecting his income much.
Example: You have 400 Million dollars. You are smart. Therefore, you aren't going to go to "work" to make 9-11% or even a little more since you can make that without working. Therefore, you are going to strive for AT LEAST a 15% ROI - just 4 or 5 points above the market for all your corporations and work.
400 Million in a decade with that return is 1.6 BILLION dollars. As you well know, when you have Real Estate corporations much of your "lifestyle" is paid within the company....travel, entertainment, dining and MUCH more. Remember, this is a guy who uses his charity to paint portraits of himself.
OK, so if he had 400 Million in 1980, he's have had 1.6 BILLION....or adjusted down to 1.5 if he spent an "extra" 10's of millions a year to his deductible expenses.
Now, if he made a lifetime ROI of 15%, we'd be up to 100+ BILLION today. Instead, he was at less than one billion when a book about his BS came out and he sued the author and LOST. That was about 2008 I think.
It's hard to imagine that you are saying "Trump spends too much money and wastes too much money so therefore you are wrong in thinking he should have a return". Well, I don't consider spending (wasting) money as being "a good businessman or investor". Plenty of people live high on the hog and don't lose it all.
It wouldn't matter if I cut the aWarremount he inherited (about $420 million) in 1/2.....leaving a separate small pile for his lifestyle. That would still be 50 BILLION by today at 15%
If people think making 15% on an investment enterprise on your own money is too much, the only "base examples" I can give are these:
I have made close to 11% lifetime ROI on passive investments.
There are Real Estate REITS that pay 9% plus or 10% including gains.....that is, one can make that without doing anything.
The Markets tend to make about 10% per year.
Warren Buffet has made 21% per year since the 1960's. He's simply an investor...not "making greatest deals".
Anyway, why do people insist on changing the subject? Are Gold Plated toilet fixtures really that appealing to many that they praise Trump for wasting his money instead of planning for recessions and failure?
Note - there are quite a few mutual funds that have made 12-13% yearly since 1980.
In those years and decades after one could easily place private mortgages that paid 12-15%.
Praising a lifetime return (Trump) of about 6% is a bridge too far - especially when that return itself is based on stealing money from the taxpayers, investors, contractors and banks, etc....
Basically, he's a leech....IMHO.
I don't know if you are lying to support the initial lie or if you are just clueless when it comes to math and basic finance.
It is a pure BS hit job to claim the S&P 500 index fund outperformed Trump while ignoring:
1, management fees, which were much higher in the 80s and 90s. Compounded over time it eats in to returns and would be noticed over 40 years compared to an index with no fees. Your lie ignores this.
2, Dividend taxes, which were much higher up until 2003 and he doesn't get the lower rate either btw.
Reinvested dividends account for over half of the growth in the S&P 500 since 1980. Trump would have lost most of that in the 1980s and 1990s from taxes.
Acknowledging this fact alone already sinks a hole in the BS. Your lie has to ignore this because this alone proves the whole theory as idiotic.
3, Trump took a massive YEARLY income from his business to live an opulent lifestyle. The lie you are regurgitating assumes Trump took no income from his stocks to live on. Trump was buying helicopters and airplanes, and limos...the dude blew threw money every year for 40 years.
4, Over the course of 40 years companies grow into and fall out of the S&P 500 index. The mangers have to buy and sell and more importantly pay some taxes and fees for doing so that the investor never sees...another reason why the index fund won't perfectly match the index.
5, his business pays thousands of workers who in turn pay taxes. Should this be ignored as if it isn't productive? In the next breath Democrats will make excuses for why middle class people can't build wealth why downplaying Trump's actually nice job on building wealth.
It is extremely dishonest to ignore everything above. Best case scenario you are talking about something that you have no clue on and simply fell for a convincing lie. Worst case scenario you care more about slandering Trump than you do your own integrity.
my only issue with bankruptcy is that if you as a individual do it you are a looser, can't be trusted morally corrupt and are taught to be ashamed about it. But if you are a business it can be a great thing to do and its called reorganization. and no i have never filed or thought about filing for Bankruptcy.
In the greatest economy the world has ever known...why would personal bankruptcies be so high in all the states where new Manufacturing, Mining and other Jobs are "booming like never before"????
In other words, you're putting out looney propaganda again.
Why are North Dakota, South Carolina, North Carolina, and West Virginia among the states with the lowest personal bankruptcy rates? They are presumably some of the states included in the "cetera" you maligned.
Are you going to try to make an intelligent point, or do you just feel impelled pretend there is a correlation that is contradicted by the facts in a lot of other states that you hate just as much?
Whether a state voted for Trump doesn't appear to have much correlation with its personal bankruptcy rate. So why are you pretending it does?
Look at the leaders of these states. It's no surprise. There's some outliers but majority of these states are incompetent states with horrible government and economics.
Like blue states such as California, New York, and Illinois where they lose 1000s of people per month to other states?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
