[US Election 2016] Democratic Primary Megathread II

[Galloism]

I'm not saying sell federal land, but let me ask you a question. The united states has something like $120 trillion in assets. It has $19 trillion in debt. Is it still wise to lend money to it?

Let's scale it down. Let's suppose you know a guy who has $120 million in assets, and $19 million in debt, and has never not paid any debt he's ever had.

Would it be a good idea to lend him money?

Incidentally, I don't see how making sure that seniors don't die in abject poverty is "waste".

I would lend them money. If you have 120 trillion in assets and 19 trillion in debt, you're barely at around 9.5% of your debt-to-assets ratio, so of course you're a low liability.

It's like a guy who is making 120,000 dollars but he only has 19,000 in debt. Of course he can pay his debts, so banks will gladly give them money.

/picking nits

I come up with 15.8%, which is still low.

[Corrian]

That turnout in Colorado is painfully low.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I would lend them money. If you have 120 trillion in assets and 19 trillion in debt, you're barely at around 9.5% of your debt-to-assets ratio, so of course you're a low liability.

It's like a guy who is making 120,000 dollars but he only has 19,000 in debt. Of course he can pay his debts, so banks will gladly give them money.

/picking nits

I come up with 15.8%, which is still low.

Oh, yes, 15.8. I don't know what I was thinking

[Fascist Russian Empire]

I'm not saying sell federal land, but let me ask you a question. The united states has something like $120 trillion in assets. It has $19 trillion in debt. Is it still wise to lend money to it?

Let's scale it down. Let's suppose you know a guy who has $120 million in assets, and $19 million in debt, and has never not paid any debt he's ever had.

Would it be a good idea to lend him money?

Incidentally, I don't see how making sure that seniors don't die in abject poverty is "waste".

If someone had a large net-worth, and a debt amounting to a little under a tenth of that net-worth, and had a good credit rating, sure, the banks probably would lend that person money, and they wouldn't have much of a reason not to. Someone who has a past record of paying his debts, and who has been responsible with his money, is a good person to lend money to. With our government, though, it isn't the same thing. The American government is losing enormous amounts of money every year, hasn't had a positive net-balance in the budget in a decade and a half, and is too dysfunctional to do anything to fix the problem, not to mention the fact that the US has in fact had credit downgrades over the past few years. Loaning endless quantities of money to an entity which is most likely never going to pay the money back isn't something that most banks are likely to do; there will come a point when the banks stop giving the US government money, and everything goes downhill.

Regarding Social Security, there are infinitely better ways to ensure that people aren't dying on the streets than a mandatory pension program that takes money from everyone in America and just gives it back to them when they reach a certain age. There's a reason that food-stamps exist, and it's to make sure people aren't starving to death. There's no reason why ordinary welfare programs can't work for the elderly; America doesn't need to go bankrupt with failed programs in order to help poor people.

[The United Territories of Providence]

https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/sliver-sandersbenchmarks-1.png?w=575&h=1510

He's leading in Kansas by 18%, Nebraska by 17%, Maine by 24%, Michigan by 4%, Idaho by 21%, Utah by 15%, Arizona by 10%, Alaska by 19%, Washington by 17%, Wisconsin by 13%, Hawaii by 7%, and even in Hillary's Home Ground of New York by 2%, which is high considering she was a senator from their state.

That's not what the chart says. What you're looking at is how he should finish if the race is split 50-50 and Sanders wants to win. If Sanders wants to win, he almost certainly has to hit those targets. He hasn't in the states that have voted, and in the states that are coming up, he's not performing well in the polls. So if he keeps missing his targets like he has in every state and like he has tonight, he will lose. Sanders didn't do nearly well enough and currently he is not on track for the nomination.

[Galloism]

I'm not saying sell federal land, but let me ask you a question. The united states has something like $120 trillion in assets. It has $19 trillion in debt. Is it still wise to lend money to it?

Let's scale it down. Let's suppose you know a guy who has $120 million in assets, and $19 million in debt, and has never not paid any debt he's ever had.

Would it be a good idea to lend him money?

Incidentally, I don't see how making sure that seniors don't die in abject poverty is "waste".

If someone had a large net-worth, and a debt amounting to a little under a tenth of that net-worth, and had a good credit rating, sure, the banks probably would lend that person money, and they wouldn't have much of a reason not to. Someone who has a past record of paying his debts, and who has been responsible with his money, is a good person to lend money to. With our government, though, it isn't the same thing. The American government is losing enormous amounts of money every year, hasn't had a positive net-balance in the budget in a decade and a half, and is too dysfunctional to do anything to fix the problem, not to mention the fact that the US has in fact had credit downgrades over the past few years. Loaning endless quantities of money to an entity which is most likely never going to pay the money back isn't something that most banks are likely to do; there will come a point when the banks stop giving the US government money, and everything goes downhill.

Regarding Social Security, there are infinitely better ways to ensure that people aren't dying on the streets than a mandatory pension program that takes money from everyone in America and just gives it back to them when they reach a certain age. There's a reason that food-stamps exist, and it's to make sure people aren't starving to death. There's no reason why ordinary welfare programs can't work for the elderly; America doesn't need to go bankrupt with failed programs in order to help poor people.

Ok, the guy loses money every year, but he has a net worth of 120 million and a debt of 19 million, and has never not paid any debt in his entire life.

You, individually, are thinking about loaning him a few hundred dollars that he needs to pay you next year. Good loan to make?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Oklahoma is the first to have 100% called in, both in the Republican and Democratic one.

Apparently that state is the fastest counter.

A couple of jokes immediately spring to mind, but I've sworn off mocking rural working-class and poor people.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I'm not saying sell federal land, but let me ask you a question. The united states has something like $120 trillion in assets. It has $19 trillion in debt. Is it still wise to lend money to it?

Let's scale it down. Let's suppose you know a guy who has $120 million in assets, and $19 million in debt, and has never not paid any debt he's ever had.

Would it be a good idea to lend him money?

Incidentally, I don't see how making sure that seniors don't die in abject poverty is "waste".

If someone had a large net-worth, and a debt amounting to a little under a tenth of that net-worth, and had a good credit rating, sure, the banks probably would lend that person money, and they wouldn't have much of a reason not to. Someone who has a past record of paying his debts, and who has been responsible with his money, is a good person to lend money to. With our government, though, it isn't the same thing. The American government is losing enormous amounts of money every year, hasn't had a positive net-balance in the budget in a decade and a half, and is too dysfunctional to do anything to fix the problem, not to mention the fact that the US has in fact had credit downgrades over the past few years. Loaning endless quantities of money to an entity which is most likely never going to pay the money back isn't something that most banks are likely to do; there will come a point when the banks stop giving the US government money, and everything goes downhill.

Regarding Social Security, there are infinitely better ways to ensure that people aren't dying on the streets than a mandatory pension program that takes money from everyone in America and just gives it back to them when they reach a certain age. There's a reason that food-stamps exist, and it's to make sure people aren't starving to death. There's no reason why ordinary welfare programs can't work for the elderly; America doesn't need to go bankrupt with failed programs in order to help poor people.

Contrary to personal banking though, most governments pay their debts over the long term, not the short term.

There's countries that have taken 50 years or more to pay back their debt.

Shit, last lend-lease payment we got from Britain was in December 2006, from the first protocol which started in 1941, that's 65 years.

[Fascist Russian Empire]

Ok, the guy loses money every year, but he has a net worth of 120 million and a debt of 19 million, and has never not paid any debt in his entire life.

You, individually, are thinking about loaning him a few hundred dollars that he needs to pay you next year. Good loan to make?

If he's losing money, he can't be paying off his debt, unless, of course, he's getting more loans to pay off his old loans. A financially reckless person who borrows more and more every year to pay for his increasingly expensive ideas, and who hasn't paid back a penny to the banks in fifteen years, is probably not a wise person to give money to. Unless, of course, the bank just wanted to take the guy's property and assets when he inevitably goes bankrupt, which is entirely possible.

Either way, if he only had debt amounting to a tenth of his net-worth, and he had a good credit rating, sure, it wouldn't be a bad idea to give him a loan. Ten years later, when he's losing even more money than before, and his debt has doubled, not so much.

Contrary to personal banking though, most governments pay their debts over the long term, not the short term.

There's countries that have taken 50 years or more to pay back their debt.

Shit, last lend-lease payment we got from Britain was in December 2006, from the first protocol which started in 1941, that's 65 years.

Regardless of how long the government takes to pay back a loan, the financially responsible thing to do is to not take the loan in the first place unless you truly need to. The US government doesn't truly need to take loans, it just does before it's too irresponsible to cut unnecessary spending.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Ok, the guy loses money every year, but he has a net worth of 120 million and a debt of 19 million, and has never not paid any debt in his entire life.

You, individually, are thinking about loaning him a few hundred dollars that he needs to pay you next year. Good loan to make?

If he's losing money, he can't be paying off his debt, unless, of course, he's getting more loans to pay off his old loans. A financially reckless person who borrows more and more every year to pay for his increasingly expensive ideas, and who hasn't paid back a penny to the banks in fifteen years, is probably not a wise person to give money to. Unless, of course, the bank just wanted to take the guy's property and assets when he inevitably goes bankrupt, which is entirely possible.

Either way, if he only had debt amounting to a tenth of his net-worth, and he had a good credit rating, sure, it wouldn't be a bad idea to give him a loan. Ten years later, when he's losing even more money than before, and his debt has doubled, not so much.

Contrary to personal banking though, most governments pay their debts over the long term, not the short term.

There's countries that have taken 50 years or more to pay back their debt.

Shit, last lend-lease payment we got from Britain was in December 2006, from the first protocol which started in 1941, that's 65 years.

Regardless of how long the government takes to pay back a loan, the financially responsible thing to do is to not take the loan in the first place unless you truly need to. The US government doesn't truly need to take loans, it just does before it's too irresponsible to cut unnecessary spending.

Apparently you don't understand how credit works, do you?

Why do you take a business loan?

[AiliailiA]

Yes it is, he won four states and the upcoming ones are leaning towards him.

https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/sliver-sandersbenchmarks-1.png?w=575&h=1510

That's not updated with todays results. The right hand column is a 538 projection (from a week ago).

VT ... needed +83, currently +73
MN ... needed +21, currently +18.8
CO ... needed +11, currently +16.2
MA ... needed +11, currently —1.8
OK ... needed +5, currently +10
TN ... needed +2, currently —33.7
VA ... needed —9, currently —29.1
TX ... needed —13, currently —33.3
AK ... needed —15, currently —39.0
GA ... needed —27, currently —42.8
AL ... needed —30, currently —60.0

States he was always going to lose (and by Nate's projection COULD lose while still tying with Clinton by the convention), Sanders lost by huge margins. That will cost him delegates, and is unsustainable for the whole race.

Clearly he concentrated his campaigning on the states he MIGHT win, for the momentum not the delegates. So it's not as bad as it might look.

EDIT: The only real disaster, tactically, is Massachusetts. And I have no idea how Nate Silver expected Bernie to win Tennessee!

[Fascist Russian Empire]

:rofl:

Apparently you don't understand how credit works, do you?

Apparently you don't understand how interest payments work, do you? If you borrow money, you need to pay back more than you borrowed. The smart thing to do is, if you don't have enough money to pay for everything to want to, to either lower the amount of money you spend, or get more revenue. Keynesian economists don't seem to understand that perpetually borrowing more and more money, only to waste it on deficit spending, and having to pay increasingly high interest payments, is a bad idea.

[Galloism]

Ok, the guy loses money every year, but he has a net worth of 120 million and a debt of 19 million, and has never not paid any debt in his entire life.

You, individually, are thinking about loaning him a few hundred dollars that he needs to pay you next year. Good loan to make?

If he's losing money, he can't be paying off his debt, unless, of course, he's getting more loans to pay off his old loans. A financially reckless person who borrows more and more every year to pay for his increasingly expensive ideas, and who hasn't paid back a penny to the banks in fifteen years, is probably not a wise person to give money to. Unless, of course, the bank just wanted to take the guy's property and assets when he inevitably goes bankrupt, which is entirely possible.

Either way, if he only had debt amounting to a tenth of his net-worth, and he had a good credit rating, sure, it wouldn't be a bad idea to give him a loan. Ten years later, when he's losing even more money than before, and his debt has doubled, not so much.

Maybe, but in that period of time, the investment in college will pay off, and the government's expenditures will have dropped and income will have risen.

Ergo, the money for college is a good investment.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Apparently you don't understand how credit works, do you?

Apparently you don't understand how interest payments work, do you? If you borrow money, you need to pay back more than you borrowed. The smart thing to do is, if you don't have enough money to pay for everything to want to, to either lower the amount of money you spend, or get more revenue. Keynesian economists don't seem to understand that perpetually borrowing more and more money, only to waste it on deficit spending, and having to pay increasingly high interest payments, is a bad idea.

So no, you don't understand how credit works.

[AiliailiA]

Oklahoma is the first to have 100% called in, both in the Republican and Democratic one.

Apparently that state is the fastest counter.

A couple of jokes immediately spring to mind, but I've sworn off mocking rural working-class and poor people.

... at least until after November 8 ?

[Galloism]

Apparently you don't understand how interest payments work, do you? If you borrow money, you need to pay back more than you borrowed. The smart thing to do is, if you don't have enough money to pay for everything to want to, to either lower the amount of money you spend, or get more revenue. Keynesian economists don't seem to understand that perpetually borrowing more and more money, only to waste it on deficit spending, and having to pay increasingly high interest payments, is a bad idea.

So no, you don't understand how credit works.

Ironically, given we get interest rates below inflation, we actually pay back less than we borrow.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

So no, you don't understand how credit works.

Ironically, given we get interest rates below inflation, we actually pay back less than we borrow.

To be honest, his argument falls into the same trap "cash-only" people swear by. That if you don't have the money you just don't have the money, and that credit is a scam, and that you should never take loans or credit lines if you don't have to.

Well of course a person who is making a lot of money in cash and has it in the bank is a smart person, but credit is not supposed to be based on need, it's supposed to be based on it being a supplement, meaning you don't need it, but it allows you to do more things with it than if you didn't.

I don't need the ~20,000 dollars I have across all my credit cards, but it is good to know I can invest it and I can take high loans from banks if I wanted to invest in a business. Yes, interest payments are a bitch, but it's generally not an issue unless you suck at borrowing money.

The United States in this instance didn't "need" an extra 19 trillion dollars, but it can borrow it whenever they want because it's there.

[Fascist Russian Empire]

Maybe, but in that period of time, the investment in college will pay off, and the government's expenditures will have dropped and income will have risen.

Ergo, the money for college is a good investment.

Honestly, I remain unconvinced that the concepts of deficit spending and Keynesian economics are beneficial in the long run; austerity, balanced budgets, and actually having money before you start spending money remain the best ways to have a functional economy in the long run, as far as I can tell. I am still of the opinion that removing expensive and unnecessary programs from the budget, and investing that money, instead of borrowing money, is a significantly more effective way of making a long-term investment.

Either way, with that, I'll be taking my leave.

[The United Territories of Providence]

https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/sliver-sandersbenchmarks-1.png?w=575&h=1510

That's not updated with todays results. The right hand column is a 538 projection (from a week ago).

VT ... needed +83, currently +73
MN ... needed +21, currently +18.8
CO ... needed +11, currently +16.2
MA ... needed +11, currently —1.8
OK ... needed +5, currently +10
TN ... needed +2, currently —33.7
VA ... needed —9, currently —29.1
TX ... needed —13, currently —33.3
AK ... needed —15, currently —39.0
GA ... needed —27, currently —42.8
AL ... needed —30, currently —60.0

States he was always going to lose (and by Nate's projection COULD lose while still tying with Clinton by the convention), Sanders lost by huge margins. That will cost him delegates, and is unsustainable for the whole race.

Clearly he concentrated his campaigning on the states he MIGHT win, for the momentum not the delegates. So it's not as bad as it might look.

EDIT: The only real disaster, tactically, is Massachusetts. And I have no idea how Nate Silver expected Bernie to win Tennessee!

The state was demographically favorable. The Benchmarks are how the race should look if support was split 50-50 and Sanders has the edge to win. He under-performed in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina and every state with the exception of 2. A couple points matter when delegates are proportionally awarded. I'd argue that it's...pretty bad. However, it's not catastrophic. If he can make up the Gap on the 15th, then there's a path for him. But if he continues to under-perform, the primary is over on the Democratic side.

[Galloism]

Maybe, but in that period of time, the investment in college will pay off, and the government's expenditures will have dropped and income will have risen.

Ergo, the money for college is a good investment.

Honestly, I remain unconvinced that the concepts of deficit spending and Keynesian economics are beneficial in the long run; austerity, balanced budgets, and actually having money before you start spending money remain the best ways to have a functional economy in the long run, as far as I can tell. I am still of the opinion that removing expensive and unnecessary programs from the budget, and investing that money, instead of borrowing money, is a significantly more effective way of making a long-term investment.

Either way, with that, I'll be taking my leave.

Honestly, even for business deficit spending is a way of existence.

I've done books for a dealer before. It's flat out normal for a dealer to have ten million in inventory and 11 million in debt. It's the way they operate in general principle.

Money tied up in fixed assets is money wasted. You lose the time value of money.

This is true not just for dealers either, in most businesses of any size, credit is a way of doing business.

[Corrian]

Personally I'm just hoping to see that it is close and Clinton had to actually put up a fight to win.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Maybe, but in that period of time, the investment in college will pay off, and the government's expenditures will have dropped and income will have risen.

Ergo, the money for college is a good investment.

Honestly, I remain unconvinced that the concepts of deficit spending and Keynesian economics are beneficial in the long run; austerity, balanced budgets, and actually having money before you start spending money remain the best ways to have a functional economy in the long run, as far as I can tell. I am still of the opinion that removing expensive and unnecessary programs from the budget, and investing that money, instead of borrowing money, is a significantly more effective way of making a long-term investment.

Either way, with that, I'll be taking my leave.

It's a good idea only when you have big balls of steel and want to prove something to the world.

Otherwise, any business needs credit to grow. Capital isn't enough 100% of the time.

[Galloism]

Honestly, I remain unconvinced that the concepts of deficit spending and Keynesian economics are beneficial in the long run; austerity, balanced budgets, and actually having money before you start spending money remain the best ways to have a functional economy in the long run, as far as I can tell. I am still of the opinion that removing expensive and unnecessary programs from the budget, and investing that money, instead of borrowing money, is a significantly more effective way of making a long-term investment.

Either way, with that, I'll be taking my leave.

It's a good idea only when you have big balls of steel and want to prove something to the world.

Otherwise, any business needs credit to grow. Capital isn't enough 100% of the time.

Honestly, capital isn't even advantageous most of the time, especially for publicly traded companies. You're better off to keep dividends regular and borrow money you need to expand. This is because the interest is both tax deductible, and paying regular dividends keeps your stock up which sustains your ability to raise more capital.

[AiliailiA]

So no, you don't understand how credit works.

Ironically, given we get interest rates below inflation, we actually pay back less than we borrow.

Which I guess demonstrates that, to lenders, the US paper is the safest possible investment. They're willing to pay (effectively) for the assurance they'll get (most of) their money back in future.

[Zebulor]

If it works like that then how come countries that put high marginal taxes on high incomes still have rich peoplein them?

They don't. The French tried having massive amounts of taxes on the rich, and the rich fled the country.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/9404209/Frances-proposed-tax-hikes-spark-exodus-of-wealthy.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/08/business/global/frances-les-riches-vow-to-leave-if-75-tax-rate-is-passed.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Look it up for yourself; you can find articles about wealthy emigration from France all over the damn place.

If the French tried stealing from the rich and had it fail miserably, I, frankly, am unconvinced that Bernie Sanders doing the same thing will have an even remotely different result.

Source?

It's common sense; the US has a massive budget deficit, and tons of debt. Adding hundreds of billions of extra spending, while not doing anything realistic to raise more revenue, is inevitably going to result in credit downgrades and bankruptcy.

So rich French people were talking about leaving France if a tax law passes... Kind of like how some Americans were going to move to Canada if Bush or Obama was re-elected. Just more whiners threatening to throw hissy fits if things don't go their way. Some may even leave, and new foreign investors go in to replace them, as it says in the article.

Even as France continues to have enough rich people, other high tax nations like Denmark (which Sanders seems to like) also have rich people even though the tax burden is higher than in the US.

Perhaps people put their money into first world nations in the first place because they are stabe nations with technologically sophisticated economies and productive labor forces, rather than because they race to the bottom to become small/weak government hellholes?