For MBA's

[Kamala Trump]

What should a business entity which wishes to succeed at business pay for assets which are currently unsellable?

 

[Cancel3]

What should a business entity which wishes to succeed at business pay for assets which are currently unsellable?

If something is currently unsellable, but will be worth a considerable amount later, is that a bad investment?

 

[Kamala Trump]

If something is currently unsellable, but will be worth a considerable amount later, is that a bad investment?

It depends on the chances of it being more valuable later. Good business people demand solid fundamentals and explanations. They don't typically go into casino crackpot crazy monkey time stage right off the bat.

If there is no direct mortgage relief of individual buyers, they will still lose their homes, the mortgages will not payout what they would have if they have been fulfilled properly. The market will continue down. I see the bailout as a blatant cash grab for the "Friends OF Power" society, with little guarantee it will do jack on main street.

So what iz up, niggah?

Some white man better start talking or some homies gonna get shot!!

 

[Kamala Trump]

Doing this this way is a direct attack on the american people to benefit parasitic financial scamsters on wall street. This trick down fascisto-socialism is a path to tyranny.

Mark my words.

heed my warning.

 

[Cancel3]

The serious downturn in the economy has produced some major bargains in the housing market.

The houses are never going to be worthless. Depending on how long you are willing to hold an asset, you could make a large chunk of change.

If someone got a mortgage and paid for 4 or 5 years, then lost it, the bank would be willing to take considerably less for the house. They have already received 4 or 5 years of payments.

 

[Cancel3]

Just as an FYI, I am not defending the bailout or the ridiculous practices of the banking and market people.

I was just answering your question about the assets.

 

[Kamala Trump]

The serious downturn in the economy has produced some major bargains in the housing market.

The houses are never going to be worthless. Depending on how long you are willing to hold an asset, you could make a large chunk of change.

If someone got a mortgage and paid for 4 or 5 years, then lost it, the bank would be willing to take considerably less for the house. They have already received 4 or 5 years of payments.

So will we be paying less than "not worthless", so we will profit when the price goes from 'less than "not worthless"' to "not worthless"?

That's a slim margin there, Buddy Boy.

Your business model is "Hope". And "Yes We Can".

 

[Kamala Trump]

Just as an FYI, I am not defending the bailout or the ridiculous practices of the banking and market people.

I was just answering your question about the assets.

Yes. As I mentioned already. It seems like a strategy based on some hard wishing.

 

[Cancel3]

Yes. As I mentioned already. It seems like a strategy based on some hard wishing.

No, its not based on hard wishing. Its based on the fact that this economic downturn is temporary.

A house is a solid asset. The value may drop over the short run, but in the long run it will almost always appreciate in value. (very few exceptions to this)

 

[Kamala Trump]

"I'm not defending the bailout. I just want to make a poor to sub-par half baked business decision seem feasible for no apparent reason." -Solitary


You're funny man!

 

[Kamala Trump]

No, its not based on hard wishing. Its based on the fact that this economic downturn is temporary.

A house is a solid asset. The value may drop over the short run, but in the long run it will almost always appreciate in value. (very few exceptions to this)

Ok. It's based on a petulant neocon knowing. Kind of like "the quickening".

 

[Cancel3]

"I'm not defending the bailout. I just want to make a poor to sub-par half baked business decision seem feasible for no apparent reason." -Solitary


You're funny man!

In the last 100 years, homes have not lost value over a 10 year period in almost any case. Deterioration of a neighborhood might cause them to lose value, but not the economy.

Basing a decision on a steady historic model is not a "poor to sub-par half baked business decision".

In 1975 and 1980 there were large loses reported on wall street. But in the long run, those same stocks earned more than they lost.

 

[Cancel3]

Ok. It's based on a petulant neocon knowing. Kind of like "the quickening".

You are clueless.

Please give me some verifiable data that shows houses being a poor long term investment. Or are you saying that suddenly things will be so radically different that the trends and histories are no longer going to apply?

 

[Kamala Trump]

You are clueless.

Please give me some verifiable data that shows houses being a poor long term investment. Or are you saying that suddenly things will be so radically different that the trends and histories are no longer going to apply?

It's just they keep saying a mortgage crisis will cripple the economy.

WHy don't the banks just think "houses are good to own" and don't worry and be happy, little bobby mcferrin?

Your plan is like a "Back in Time" movie. Where's your garbage time car now?

 

[Kamala Trump]

Solitary, go into your board and tell them you want to convert all assets to stamps and bury them in the backyard. WHat if? Oh my god. It's sound financial planning.

 

[Cancel3]

Asshat, why not just admit you have made an idiot of yourself.

During times of economic trouble, housing values drop. But they eventually come back up.



Instead of spouting insults and nonsense, please show me some data that shows the value of homes is going to remain low?

Or show me where there will be less of a need for housing in the future.

Unless you can do that, you are just making noise.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Asshat, why not just admit you have made an idiot of yourself.

I didn't, popsicle douche.

During times of economic trouble, housing values drop. But they eventually come back up.

So why all the alarmism? Why not let the markets find the values? Answer: THese investment bank are using their political connections to exonerate themselves.

I simply do not buy that these assets will just "become valuable" according to your faith-based economics.

Instead of spouting insults and nonsense, please show me some data that shows the value of homes is going to remain low?

Or show me where there will be less of a need for housing in the future.

Unless you can do that, you are just making noise.

The government doesn't need to step in if the houses are as valuable as you say. It's that simple. Using the people's piggy bank as leverage large enough to pass debt down multiple generations is also not acceptable. Just another ponzie scheme. Take your lies to morons who will listen. We don't want none.

 

[Cancel3]

I didn't, popsicle douche.

So why all the alarmism? Why not let the markets find the values? Answer: THese investment bank are using their political connections to exonerate themselves.

I simply do not buy that these assets will just "become valuable" according to your faith-based economics.


The government doesn't need to step in if the houses are as valuable as you say. It's that simple. Using the people's piggy bank as leverage large enough to pass debt down multiple generations is also not acceptable. Just another ponzie scheme. Take your lies to morons who will listen. We don't want none.

First of all, we agree that the bailout never should have happened.

What we are disagreeing about is whether the houses will increase in value or not.

I believe they will, based on 100 years of so of history and the fact that an increase in the population means an increase in the need for houses.

You are just trying to spout nonsense and hope no one will notice. You are trying to accuse me of saying shit I never said or even hinted at.

When you have any additional data, I will be happy to debate you. If this is all you have then we have nothing more to discuss.

Either show me a reason that the value of houses will not rise, or start an argument about another topic.

And if you are going to accuse me of lying, I would like for you to point out exactly where I lied. I have just maintained that the value of the houses will rise, and that makes them a good long term investment. No lie there.

 

[Kamala Trump]

First of all, we agree that the bailout never should have happened.

What we are disagreeing about is whether the houses will increase in value or not.

I believe they will, based on 100 years of so of history and the fact that an increase in the population means an increase in the need for houses.

You are just trying to spout nonsense and hope no one will notice. You are trying to accuse me of saying shit I never said or even hinted at.

When you have any additional data, I will be happy to debate you. If this is all you have then we have nothing more to discuss.

Either show me a reason that the value of houses will not rise, or start an argument about another topic.

And if you are going to accuse me of lying, I would like for you to point out exactly where I lied. I have just maintained that the value of the houses will rise, and that makes them a good long term investment. No lie there.

I think that's a poor investment, regardless of some possible payoff. The odds don't look good to me.

I would think if your logic was sound, some private corporation or conglomerate would take advantage of the situation, but they all think it's a dogshit deal, which why THEY DON'T WANT IT EITHER.

You like longshots with an infinite time horizon, I get it, you live in loony land.

 

[Kamala Trump]

All this bailout enables is for some big banks to stay afloat while individuals still lose their homes. That's the simple truth here.