Aristides Posted February 8 Report Posted February 8 https://abcnews.go.com/US/sovereign-wealth-funds-after-trump-signs-executive-order/story?id=118422787 His sovereign wealth fund is just a scam to borrow and spend without approval of Congress. The guy thinks like a crook in whatever he does. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted February 8 Report Posted February 8 How many people voted for Trump so that he could nationalize TikTok? I'm guessing zero. 1 Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Radiorum Posted February 8 Report Posted February 8 Something doesn't add up. Normally, these funds are capitalized using budget surpluses (they are common in non-Western, oil-rich countries) but the US has an enormous federal deficit. On the campaign trail, Trump said he would build the fund using revenue from his planned tariffs and “other intelligent things.” Another scheme 3 Quote
Aristides Posted February 8 Author Report Posted February 8 As long as they are running deficit’s it’s borrowed money. Quote
CdnFox Posted February 8 Report Posted February 8 2 hours ago, Aristides said: https://abcnews.go.com/US/sovereign-wealth-funds-after-trump-signs-executive-order/story?id=118422787 His sovereign wealth fund is just a scam to borrow and spend without approval of Congress. The guy thinks like a crook in whatever he does. The left has been talking up Norway's Sovereign wealth fund for ages now and demanding things like nationalizing oil to have a sovereign wealth fund the government controls But when trump does it it's terrible evil no good very bad scam. The hypocrisy is overwhelming. Most conservatives, especially Canadian conservatives, believe in much smaller government that's focused on its core My personal is going to have to decide right now they will be back responsibilities. That prevents the kind of" green slush fund" and "sovereign wealth" fund nonsense and abuse. But you guys have not been on board with that at all ,now that it's being used in a way you don't like you're crying. You can't have it both ways Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
robosmith Posted February 8 Report Posted February 8 4 hours ago, Aristides said: https://abcnews.go.com/US/sovereign-wealth-funds-after-trump-signs-executive-order/story?id=118422787 His sovereign wealth fund is just a scam to borrow and spend without approval of Congress. The guy thinks like a crook in whatever he does. He will need approval of Congress to fund his SCAM. Quote
gatomontes99 Posted February 8 Report Posted February 8 It is not a scam but it is a horrible idea. Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
Aristides Posted February 8 Author Report Posted February 8 (edited) 3 hours ago, CdnFox said: The left has been talking up Norway's Sovereign wealth fund for ages now and demanding things like nationalizing oil to have a sovereign wealth fund the government controls But when trump does it it's terrible evil no good very bad scam. The hypocrisy is overwhelming. Most conservatives, especially Canadian conservatives, believe in much smaller government that's focused on its core My personal is going to have to decide right now they will be back responsibilities. That prevents the kind of" green slush fund" and "sovereign wealth" fund nonsense and abuse. But you guys have not been on board with that at all ,now that it's being used in a way you don't like you're crying. You can't have it both ways Norways fund is financed with profits, Trumps will be financed with debt. It’s a way to borrow and spend without approval of Congress. Edited February 8 by Aristides Quote
Deluge Posted February 8 Report Posted February 8 5 hours ago, Aristides said: https://abcnews.go.com/US/sovereign-wealth-funds-after-trump-signs-executive-order/story?id=118422787 His sovereign wealth fund is just a scam to borrow and spend without approval of Congress. The guy thinks like a crook in whatever he does. Another TDS flare up, Aristides? Have you gone off your medication? ABC spews left-wing propaganda. It's best to just ignore them. Quote
Aristides Posted February 8 Author Report Posted February 8 Sovereign wealth funds explained to MAGA hats. Quote
CdnFox Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 4 hours ago, Aristides said: Norways fund is financed with profits, Trumps will be financed with debt. It’s a way to borrow and spend without approval of Congress. I don't disagree entirely but the fact is that's always what the door is open to when you approve of this kind of thing. Consider canada's "green slush fund". Or albera's "rainy day" fund which subsequent gov'ts drained to hide their deficit spending. Or the EI fund of the feds that the libs under chretien stole 70 billion dollars from till harper passed laws to lock it down. Whenever the gov't has the right to stockpile money for anything it will be abused later. So either you accept this kind of thing from the gov't or you don't. I will concede your point that while usually this kind of thing is set up in good faith by one gov't and abused LATER whereas this one is going to avoid the middleman and just abuse it right away, but to my mind that changes nothing. This is why gov'ts ESPECIALLY federal shouldnl't be allowed to do this kind of thing and if they are you have to accept the abuse. Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
CdnFox Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 3 hours ago, Aristides said: Sovereign wealth funds explained to MAGA hats. That was kind of dumb. The speaker in that video has very limited understanding of what he's talking about. He acknowledges that the fund is for investment but then refers to the investments as spending the money. He asks how you can invest when you're planning on spending (to buy tick tock). How the hell does he think you wind up owning an investment if you don't spend the money to buy the investment. I stopped watching shortly after that. He made a few other incorrect statements To manipulate the markets and gain control over things that the government would normally have no business owning. The united states government should not buy and own tiktok and if it does it will be ridiculed for being a state-owned propaganda apparatus. But he can use the state's money to buy tiktok or similar things and control them as if they were a state-owned entity when in reality they are not and make sure that people he trusts are appointed to run them. He can also use the fund to significantly manipulate the stock market and specific stocks to make the economic circumstances the country is in look better or worse. Don't listen to the CBC when it comes to money, they are more likely to get it wrong than right Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
Aristides Posted February 9 Author Report Posted February 9 30 minutes ago, CdnFox said: That was kind of dumb. The speaker in that video has very limited understanding of what he's talking about. He acknowledges that the fund is for investment but then refers to the investments as spending the money. He asks how you can invest when you're planning on spending (to buy tick tock). How the hell does he think you wind up owning an investment if you don't spend the money to buy the investment. I stopped watching shortly after that. He made a few other incorrect statements To manipulate the markets and gain control over things that the government would normally have no business owning. The united states government should not buy and own tiktok and if it does it will be ridiculed for being a state-owned propaganda apparatus. But he can use the state's money to buy tiktok or similar things and control them as if they were a state-owned entity when in reality they are not and make sure that people he trusts are appointed to run them. He can also use the fund to significantly manipulate the stock market and specific stocks to make the economic circumstances the country is in look better or worse. Don't listen to the CBC when it comes to money, they are more likely to get it wrong than right He has a great understanding. It's too bad you stopped watching but I'm not surprised. As he said, how do we know how he is going to spend it, we don't know until he does. He also points to the Malaysian fund that had no oversight and a president ripped it off for billions and bankrupted it. He went to jail for 12 years. Don't let your bias against CBC cloud what you should be paying attention too. Ask yourself three simple questions. 1: How is he going to raise this money and invest it while lowering taxes at the same time? 2: How is he going to pay for it with tariffs (a consumption tax) and return manufacturing to the US at the same time? 3: How is he going to invest it and spend it at the same time? Because he is saying he is going to do all of those. Quote
CdnFox Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 2 minutes ago, Aristides said: He has a great understanding. He doesn't. As I said he's made several incorrect statements early in the show and very clearly does not understand what he's talking about fully. It's not up for debate, he's made several inaccurate statements Quote It's too bad you stopped watching but I'm not surprised. If somebody is wrong in the first 5 minutes and substantial fashion there's really not much point in watching further. Quote As he said, how do we know how he is going to spend it, we don't know until he does. How is that not true of virtually every sovereign fund in existence? You're not going to know what they're going to invest in until they invest. But you can't call it spending. Purchasing and investment isn't the same as just spending money. And the whole point of any sovereignty fund is to purchase investments Quote He also points to the Malaysian fund that had no oversight and a president ripped it off for billions and bankrupted it. And I pointed to Canadian examples never mind Malaysia. So what's your point? As I said you either accept these things or you don't because inevitably they always wind up the same way. He went to jail for 12 years. Don't let your bias against CBC cloud what you should be paying attention too. Quote Ask yourself three simple questions. 1: How is he going to raise this money and invest it while lowering taxes at the same time? 2: How is he going to pay for it with tariffs (a consumption tax) and return manufacturing to the US at the same time? 3: How is he going to invest it and spend it at the same time? Before we tackle the first two which are at least somewhat serious you deserve to be slapped for asking something as silly as number three. Don't ruin the discussion with banalities. You have to buy something in order to invest money. You buy stocks or bonds or an asset or a money market fund or something. So it would be more accurate to ask how it is possible to invest and not spend at the same time. He's going to spend it on investments, he's not talking about buying a new car. Getting back to the more sensible ones, you answer the first one with the second one. He intends to pay for it with tariff money at least to start. I think he's going to wind up disappointed in that regard but that is how he thinks he can manage to raise the cash well at the same time lowering taxes. I think he's going to run into a problem and wind up having to borrow money to satisfy both. But perhaps he has some sort of idea or scheme that will allow for it. If he is successful in stimulating investment then over time the increase in financial activity may very well pay for the reduction in taxes. Or he could intend to loan the money to the fund and then have it paid back to the taxpayers through the investment return. On to the second point I think that should speak for itself. Firstly if you have a manufacturing interest in any foreign country you have to realize it may very well become the subject of tariffs so you're better off to move that to the US where you won't face such tariffs. That is the loud and clear message he is sending and without a doubt american manufacturing will begin to look at local options as much as possible to avoid that. In addition because the tariffs make the other countries less competitive it makes investment in American companies more practical and they may see a lot of options start up that aren't there right now because they can't meet the competition. Know everything I just said there is true, but what is less clear is whether or not it will work in the specific examples that he's trying for. I don't think it's going to go as smoothly as he thinks and I think he's going to wind up with a serious inflation problem again as well as an economic downturn. But that's his plan and he may very well be right So it is possible Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
Aristides Posted February 9 Author Report Posted February 9 Actually Chang covers all those issues one at a time but as you can't be bothered to watch it, I'm not going to to waste my time explaining it. Quote
CdnFox Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 9 hours ago, Aristides said: Actually Chang covers all those issues one at a time but as you can't be bothered to watch it, I'm not going to to waste my time explaining it. Actually he doesn't. As I pointed out I watched him try and cover a number of them and they were all wrong. We managed to get something right by accident in the part I didn't watch it doesn't change the fact that most of the stuff he had already gone over was in error. And you haven't even been able to address the ones I pointed out. And considering your knowledge obviously comes from a source that you choose to believe regardless of the obvious bias and errors there really is no point in you explaining it to anyone. I'm sure you're just as wrong as he is When you focus on one source for your knowledgeare more loyal to the source than to the actual knowledge you wind up horribly misinformed and it's very easy for me to pick off your talking points. Well, i suppose you can be forgiven for your idol worship of the CBC for the little time it has remaining Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
Aristides Posted February 9 Author Report Posted February 9 (edited) None of it was in error. A: He points out Malaysia's experience where there were no safeguards compared to Norway which has extensive safeguards as how much money can be withdrawn and how it can be spent. How many safeguards did Trump announce with his decree? I will be his own private piggy bank to borrow, invest or spend with no Congressional oversight. How much of this slush fund do you think will be given in contracts to Trump backers and cronies?d B: You can use tariffs for revenues which will be paid by consumers, or you can use them to bring manufacturing back to the US and reduce imports. You can't do both. C; US government bonds pay over 4% interest so any investments that are made with borrowed money will have to earn a 4% return before they can make a nickel for the treasury. If they are spent, it is just like any other government expenditures that are done on borrowed money and will increase the national debt. BTW, manipulating the stock market is illegal but I don't see that bothering Trump. You just reject it because you don't like the source and claim to be objective. Edited February 9 by Aristides Quote
CdnFox Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 24 minutes ago, Aristides said: None of it was in error. I pointed out errors and you haven't addressed any of them. And your example about the Malaysian one is absolutely ignorant. As I have already demonstrated these things are always open to abuse, there's no law that the government can bring in that the next government can't change so you have to accept they're going to be abused whether there's protections on them today or not. How many years did we have EI coverage where it wasn't abused by the government right up until the day they decided it would be and scoffed 70 billion dollars and spent it inappropriately. You ABSOLUTELY CAN USE TARRIFS TO RAISE MONEY AND BRING BACK INDUSTRY AT THE SAME TIME. Think about it. If the tarrifs go on today then it will still take time for industries to plan for and resettle back in the united states. That doesn't happen overnight. They have to find locations, build facilities, so on and so forth. So you can get a couple of years of tarrif revenue going into your fund AND finish with industries back home Even better, some industries may keep their operations in foreign places do to costs of moving but you may get new companies starting up in the us because it's cheaper if you're starting over to avoid the tarrifs. So you get business in the US and you're still collecting tariff revenues. 2 hours ago, Aristides said: US government bonds pay over 4% interest so any investments that are made with borrowed money will have to earn a 4% return before they can make a nickel for the treasury. Sure. But that's not all that hard. However it does lead to certain other problems. When the gov't becomes an investor it winds up impacting the market in ways that aren't really productive and it can very easily be abused. Quote BTW, manipulating the stock market is illegal but I don't see that bothering Trump. Oh i think we both would agree he'll find a way to work through the emotional pain of it. Quote You just reject it because you don't like the source and claim to be objective. I rejected because it's wrong and I've stated specifically and empirically where it's wrong. Don't be so childish. I don't like the CBC but I'll post stuff and read their stuff If it's accurate and I'll say if it isn't. It's not like everything the CBC post is factually incorrect and I myself have posted many of their articles. But a large number of articles from virtually all news sources contain significant errors as anyone who has any knowledge of them knows and the CBC is worse than most especially when the topic is partisan. So this guy's team heard about the fund, did probably 15 to 20 minutes of research tops to educate themselves on what the hell you're talking about and probably knew nothing about it beforehand, wrote down some talking points and put together this guy's show. So already they're on pretty shaky ground, that's not a lot of time to understand a complex issue. Now mix in a little bit of bias that color is your research and you've got the makings of a misinformed media. Sorry but that was a bad piece by a bad reporter working for a bad company that's more fixated on bias and in this case it happened to leak through. Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
Aristides Posted February 9 Author Report Posted February 9 It’s not wrong, you just can’t stand that it came from the CBC Quote
CdnFox Posted February 10 Report Posted February 10 2 hours ago, Aristides said: It’s not wrong, you just can’t stand that it came from the CBC It is wrong. I've explained why it's wrong. What you are displaying is a classic example of left-wing dysphoria where you can't accept a simple truth that is staring you right in the face. You are so desperate that this person be correct that you can't even cope with the fact that I've pointed out why specifically he isn't and answered your questions and you have no rebuttal How do you expect people to take you seriously? Even when you know you're wrong you insist that facts aren't facts as long as they refute your echo chamber Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.