patrick.net

LeonDurham says

MrMagic says

Please post proof of that.

I did on the other thread.

Translation: I can't support my false narrative.

Where's the link to the post, that should be easy.

MrMagic says

Translation: I can't support my false narrative.

You can't go to the other thread? How lazy are you??

Here's one article for you:

https://newsone.com/3767646/this-is-the-one-obama-legacy-that-trump-cant-touch/

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Not at all.

In the context of a boom, you asserted that wages not keeping up with inflation was a sign the Trump's Economy wasn't great.

However, that's been the general case for the USA since the mid 1970s. It was ALSO the case for most of Obama's Presidency except for a few quarters where it was barely keeping pace or very slightly ahead as your OWN CHART showed.

No, that is not correct at all. I responded to a post saying the Trump economy is amazing and much better than under Obama by pointing out that things have actually gotten a bit worse.

marcus says

Easy. If he had just invested his inheritance in the stock market he would be better off,

No he would not have. No. That is fucking wrong, and ridiculous. The article that claims this assumes 100% reinvestment of dividends (which is impossible anyway due to taxes). No one would fucking do that. No billionaire on the Forbes 100 has ever done that. Geezus this is fucking stupid to even discuss.

Goran_K says

No he would not have. No. That is fucking wrong, and ridiculous. The article assumes 100% reinvestment of dividends. No one would fucking do that. No billionaire on the Forbes 100 has ever done that. Geezus this is fucking stupid to even discuss.

Does it matter? He's likely 2-3X less valuable than he would have been.

LeonDurham says

MrMagic says

Translation: I can't support my false narrative.

You can't go to the other thread? How lazy are you??

Here's one article for you:

https://newsone.com/3767646/this-is-the-one-obama-legacy-that-trump-cant-touch/

Really can't help yourself, can you?? Still comparing apples to hammers, over and over..

...."In this case, the number of jobs that were created in 2017, Trump’s first full year in the White House, fell short of those in 2016, when Obama was at the helm, a"

Comparing the END of Obama's term with the BEGINNING of Trump's term. We've been over this, again and again, you're just making yourself foolish with these different time period narrative. POST THE SAME TIME PERIODS like this:




See, that's an Apples to Apples compare..

Now, please don't start this B.S. again in a few more days.

LeonDurham says

Does it matter?

Yes the truth matters. It matters Tatupu. I know this is something leftists/Democrats care little about today, but it matters.

LeonDurham says

All the unemployment numbers are following the same trend as under Obama, although the jobs created numbers have worsened.

Joey.... Obama was BELOW normal...

LeonDurham says

that Trump was handed a great economy and the trend lines the existed before his Presidency have largely remained constant, although jobs created and real wages have gotten worse.

The trend lines have been consistent? Well, with Obama's last years, we can see the trend.



It's a good thing Trump won, so he could REVERSE Obama's trend line from Recovery Summer 6, 7, and 8.

Goran_K says

Yes the truth matters. It matters Tatupu. I know this is something leftists/Democrats care little about today, but it matters.

Except it has nothing to do with the truth Goran. It is only a different way of measuring the gains. Either way Trump is a loser compared to passively investing.

MrMagic says

See, that's an Apples to Apples compare..

Now, please don't start this B.S. again in a few more days.

It's amazing you persist in this ridiculous comparison. Very trollish.

LeonDurham says

that Trump was handed a great economy and the trend lines the existed before his Presidency have largely remained constant,

Trend lines.... what happened to GDP under Obama those last few year?? A great economy?? Really??



Liberal Trend lines.....


Yes, it's all about that great economy Trump inherited.... LOL

MrMagic says

What an absolute crock of shit graph that is. We're talking living wage jobs created by Trump.
Vs a President that Trolled American people that good paying manufacturing Jobs aren't coming back... studder studder uh, that's why I created 8 million part time fast food jobs in 8 years. So my Donors could skirt the Healthcare Laws.

LeonDurham says

It's amazing you persist in this ridiculous comparison. Very trollish.

Exactly.... those Pesky Facts....

marcus says

Easy. If he had just invested his inheritance in the stock market he would be better off

This is #fakenews . You have been lied to by the likes of Leon, who cant even properly interpret the articles which are used to support this fabricated claim.

Go ahead, use the available figures, then perhaps rethink your inaccurate statement.

Goran_K says

The article that claims this assumes 100% reinvestment of dividends

It also doesnt start w his inherited wealth. It starts with his stated net worth after he was already fabulously wealthy. The articles are paraphrased as : "If Trump could have liquidated his brand at his stated worth and reinvested into stock market"... which is a ridiculous comparison.

Noone in their right mind would suggest going from $1 billion to $10 billion is bad. It's stupid all around

LeonDurham says

Goran_K says

Either way Trump is a loser compared to passively investing.

.

Absolutely wrong. The article you posted was fucking retarded.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

LeonDurham says

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-probably-better-investing-donald-233020366.html

http://fortune.com/2015/08/20/donald-trump-index-funds/

Except, there were no Index funds back then.

And of course, the performance of index funds depends on people doing something other with money besides investing in index funds. Like founding Microsoft or Costco. Or building a shit ton of casinos and huge residences, which created a ton of economic activity.

"Donald Trump’s net worth has grown about 300% to an estimated $4 billion since 1987, according to a report by the Associated Press. But the real estate mogul would have made even more money if he had just invested in index funds. The AP says that, if Trump had invested in an index fund in 1988, his net worth would be as much as $13 billion."

Hey Marcus and Leon, I had no idea Trump recieved a multi-hundred million inheretence in 1987. Amazing what you learn on pat.net.... OR maybe idiocy like this :

marcus says

If he had just invested his inheritance in the stock market he would be better off

100% provably false. This is what #fakenews does to your brain.

Aphroman says

when a poster refers to Leon Durnham as Tatupu

If I may offer an opinion on this topic, keeping track of aliases is useful. LeonDurham/Tatupu70/JoeyJoeJoeJr is all one user. If people can change alias without even being noted, then the forum reverts at least partly to the experiment with only anonymous comments, like talking in a dark room with unidentifiable voices. There is a difference between correctly identifying people and insulting them.

The whole thing about the "additional" money Trump could have made is kind of laughable to me. Let's just have all the rich people invest in index funds and make money like it's pouring out of a faucet. Just stop all other forms of investment and things will just be dandy.

There are a shitload of ways to make money. There's always one that's going to do better and get better returns then yours. This whole line about Trump not increasing his money at the same rate at the S&P/index fund is a joke. Give everyone here $1M to invest in today and 20-30% would end up with zero. Yet everyone is an armchair quarterback with experience running a business AND handling 7-9 figures.

Aphroman says

That’s disingenuous as all hell.

That's true, Leon's posts usually are, as proven my multiple posters here.

Why do you have a problem with the truth. Isn't it always important to speak the truth?

WookieMan says

There are a shitload of ways to make money. There's always one that's going to do better and get better returns then yours. This whole line about Trump not increasing his money at the same rate at the S&P/index fund is a joke. Give everyone here $1M to invest in today and 20-30% would end up with zero. Yet everyone is an armchair quarterback with experience running a business AND handling 7-9 figures.

No, no. Multi-billionaire is an idiot who doesn't know business.

*drives away in 2009 Chevy Aveo*

WookieMan says

The whole thing about the "additional" money Trump could have made is kind of laughable to me.

True...

It's just more TDS showing itself, they're running out of NEW scandals, so they need to recycle OLD ones.

Goran_K says

The article that claims this assumes 100% reinvestment of dividends (which is impossible anyway due to taxes)...stupid to even discuss.

I remember debunking one of those fake news articles in 2015 or 2016, when a publicity / pr campaign was pushing it. You can tell on Google News when somebody has decided to push something, you see around 20 different commercial publications all running essentially the same story as part of a synchronized campaign. The quick repetition and ubiquity fool the audience, so even now, two years later, we continue to hear people who sincerely believe the fake 'would have done better investing passively in an index fund' narrative. Here is how it works.

Many in the financial press get paid by more than one source. They may get a salary, but they can also get speaking fees, consulting, book deals, syndication, etc. Certain stories can have checks attached. These are getting pushed by publicity / public relations firms.

Evidently, someone (probably in the DNC) decided to push the "idiot" narrative. It was part of the incoherent DNC campaign, each narrative contradicting the others. The President called Donald Trump a "con man", and that narrative had actually a lot of evidence to support it, but DNC couldn't focus on it, they had to call him an idiot too. In reality, he walked into rooms full of Ivy MBAs and he walked out with what used to be their money. That could support the con man narrative, but not the "idiot" narrative. DNC decided to push both, and we continue to hear both, even though he is in fact very smart. You can tell someone was pushing that narrative, partly because it came out of nowhere, i.e. this guy who had been covered by press for decades, including whole books written about him, had never been called an idiot before, and suddenly dozens of commercial publications were all calling him an idiot. He has a degree in economics from Wharton, but whatever, somebody was paying people to call him an idiot, and so the narrative went.

The index fund narrative was particularly funny because those didn't exist at the time he started. Nevertheless, "journalists" named specific funds (checks attached!), talking about how you can invest in those funds and do better than a billionaire. Nevermind those funds didn't exist back then, it's fake news to mislead people, and it worked.

In addition, they cherry picked their dates. They start in the 1970s or 1982, a low period for stocks, and say he should have gone all in to those non-existent index funds at that time. Nevermind his father remained alive until 1999, the son should have sold the roof over dad's head, the whole business dad and grandma had spent lifetimes building, Donald should have sold the whole thing and bet it all on the stock market, which was at that time doing terribly. I can hardly imagine what those family conversations would have been like. The real point of the story is to tell the reader to invest in stock funds (checks attached) while also pushing the "idiot" narrative (check attached).

In addition, as you and I both noted, the articles overlooked taxes, which were especially high in the 1970s and early 1980s, and transaction costs, which were also higher then than now. Even to mimic an index, he would have had to buy and sell, as index funds do now. Those transactions would have cost more back then, and they would have been taxable at higher rates back then. The "journalists" omitted that, and simply tracked the index.

And, as you've noted, he would have had to leave the whole fortune untouched, including dividends. Perhaps he should have gone to work as a financial "journalist" in a cubicle somewhere. Instead, he spent famously, including providing for his children and (sometimes reluctantly) their mothers. He has enjoyed an amazing life, spending a lot.

So, the narrative is a silly distraction, part of the incoherent DNC 2016 campaign. They had to say every bad thing they could think of, contradicting themselves and losing all credibility. They could have done better sticking to what President Obama said, but they could not focus. Perhaps candidate Trump drove them to distraction, maybe by pointing out the fact that Islam hates us, and maybe Huma threw a tantrum, and thereafter they had to throw everything they could at him.

curious2 says

The index fund narrative was particularly funny because those didn't exist at the time he started. Nevertheless, "journalists" named specific funds (checks attached!), talking about how you can invest in those funds and do better than a billionaire. Nevermind those funds didn't exist back then, it's fake news to mislead people, and it worked.

In addition, they cherry picked their dates. They start in the 1970s or 1982, a low period for stocks, and say he should have gone all in to those non-existent index funds at that time. Nevermind his father remained alive until 1999, the son should have sold the roof over dad's head, the whole business dad and grandma had spent lifetimes building, Donald should have sold the whole thing and bet it all on the stock market, which was at that time doing terribly. I can hardly imagine what those family conversations would have been like. The real point of the story is to tell the reader to invest in stock funds (checks attached) while also push...

Exactly. I don't know what else to say except becoming a billionaire is fucking hard. It doesn't happen out of someone being an idiot who is "bad at business". It simply does not happen. In order for someone to become a billionaire, it takes an amazing intersection of opportunity, drive, knowledge, and support. Notice I did not list "idiocy" as one of the requirements.

Aphroman says

Or that Thunderlips is also had too many names to remember, as to not agitate #Cult45 to show its the same person who was creaming their pants over the idea of Elizabeth Warren as president?

Oh please, all my username changes were totally obvious and I've never tried to pretend I was anybody else

"Why, he changed his username from Thundelips to T.L. Lipsovich to TwoScoopsOfIceCream to TwoScoopsOfWompWomp to TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce. How could anybody realize it was the same user?!"

I think it's obvious, the Democrats need to push for full automation of ALL white collar work and then, they'll be no more jobs and socialism will have to run the society.

http://patrick.net/post/1317782/2018-07-30-if-you-want-socialism-then-focus-on-automating-all-white-collar-jobs-first

Until then, Trump stays!

Goran_K says

Absolutely wrong. The article you posted was fucking retarded.

Now how can anyone argue with that sort of fact based logic and reasoning.

curious2 says

Goran_K says

The article that claims this assumes 100% reinvestment of dividends

BTW, that's why I'm a consultant.

I have my prior dividends reinvested & the part which isn't in a tax deferred vehicle, is where I pay ordinary income taxes on.

I don't touch any of my eggs nest.

LeonDurham says

Now how can anyone argue with that sort of fact based logic and reasoning.

You can't, that's why you aren't.

Rin says

BTW, that's why I'm a consultant.

I have my prior dividends reinvested & the part which isn't in a tax deferred vehicle, is where I pay ordinary income taxes on.

I don't touch any of my eggs nest.

That's how a lot of people do it. They have a long term growth account, and a "play" account.

Rin says

I don't touch any of my eggs nest.

Until when? At some point you touch it, or whats the point?

Goran_K says

LeonDurham says

Now how can anyone argue with that sort of fact based logic and reasoning.

You can't, that's why you aren't.

Are we still talking about the articles that pretend Trump could have invested his entire paper net-worth into cherry-picked past stock index prices? Yeah, retarded

CBOEtrader says

Rin says

I don't touch any of my eggs nest.

Until when? At some point you touch it, or whats the point?

Until I stop working, which is where I simply use the regular dividend checks as my income stream.

And thus, whether or not the market goes bullish or bearish, I have a steady source of retirement income w/o having to sell shares to raise money.

Aphroman says

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

If Trump had documentable access to half of what he claims, banks would have been in line to loan him whatever he needed to right his casinos after they went down - just for his signature. He ended up with the note from Deutsche Bank because the outcome for Deutsche's real clients would provide a useful laundering vehicle for them to exhaust ill-gotten gains into a reasonably stable, reasonably fungible if somewhat illiquid instrument. On paper, TTO was and is likely still completely non-creditworthy at anything close to the exposure of the DB note.

Patrick is this allowed here? Or should it be censored?

Sure, it may be wrong, but it's not about another user, and I think it's sincere.

Rin says

CBOEtrader says

Rin says

I don't touch any of my eggs nest.

Until when? At some point you touch it, or whats the point?

Until I stop working, which is where I simply use the regular dividend checks as my income stream.

And thus, whether or not the market goes bullish or bearish, I have a steady source of retirement income w/o having to sell shares to raise money.

how many hoes per month would your dividends allow? how about in retirement? Or does a 1 time robot purchase cover it?

Maintenance might be a little awkward...
And oil changes.

CBOEtrader says

Rin says

CBOEtrader says

Rin says

I don't touch any of my eggs nest.

Until when? At some point you touch it, or whats the point?

Until I stop working, which is where I simply use the regular dividend checks as my income stream.

And thus, whether or not the market goes bullish or bearish, I have a steady source of retirement income w/o having to sell shares to raise money.

how many hoes per month would your dividends allow? how about in retirement? Or does a 1 time robot purchase cover it?

FortWayne says

Maintenance might be a little awkward...

I think it'd be amazing if the robot analyzed your sperm, perhaps measured health factors, etc... then at some point make a pitch to humankind that banging the sex doll is the only way to prevent birth defects, maximize sperm efficiency, etc... eventually we get to brave new world status where only barbarians have babies with actual human mothers, rather than incubated in a lab.

It'll be like China, with less freedom.

Goran_K says

No billionaire on the Forbes 100 has ever done that. Geezus this is fucking stupid to even discuss.

In the future most of the billionaires on the Forbes 100 will be wealthy from invested inheritances. It might say "retail" or "mining" or "Real Estate" because of the investments they focused on. Real Estate is great becasue of the leverage. Now is the best time ever to be in leveraged real estate, becasue interest rates have been so low. We just need some inflation now. What should we try ? Running oil up didn't work. Trade wars perhaps ?

FortWayne says

Maintenance might be a little awkward...
And oil changes.

Where does the filter screw on?