Soul Strut

Drop image/file

<blockquote class="Quote"><div><strong class="bc-author">Horseleech</strong> said:</div><div><blockquote class="Quote"><div><strong class="bc-author">NomoreGarciaparra</strong> said:</div><div>This is simply weird.  I don't know how your business is structured or if you own the buildings you operate out of, but what you're saying suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of economics and finance.<br />
	<br />
	As a lender I would look at a business according to their year-to-year profits.  I wouldn't say they didn't have a surplus if their annual income didn't exceed their long-term debts.  I would say they had a surplus if their annual income exceeded their expenses, including the debt service on that long-term debt.<br />
	<br />
	If we operated on your principles, commerce all over the world would grind to an immediate halt.  Very few businesses have an annual income that exceeds their long-term debt.  <br />
	<br />
	I don't know how much more clearly I can make this point, but what you're saying could not possibly make less sense unless you got unicorns involved.</div></blockquote>
	<br />
	What you don't understand is this - there's a difference between future obligations and current/past obligations.<br />
	<br />
	My current (and past) obligations are all paid for. My future obligations aren't a debt because they haven't come due yet. I can pay every one of my bills right now and still have money on the bank. If I was a the U.S. government my debt would be zero. <br />
	<br />
	Our national debt of 14 trillion doesn't even include future obligations, only money we've already spent, so your comparison doesn't make any sense. If it included future obligations (money we're legally committed to spending) the number would be anywhere form 80 to 120 trillion, not 14 trillion.<br />
	<br />
	Oh, and in 2001, the year Clinton left us with a 40 billion 'surplus'? The national debt increased by 133 billion:<br />
	<br />
	http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm <br />
	<br />
	So, despite your claims otherwise, the overall debt <em>did</em> increase.<br />
	<br />
	As a lender, how would you feel about lending money to a corporation that did this (or far worse) for the last hundred years or so?</div></blockquote>
	<br />
	If your current and past obligations are all paid for you're a very unusual business owner.  If you don't have any mortgaged/leveraged assets then congratulations to you, but there are very few businesses in that situation.<br />
	<br />
	As a lender I'd feel just fine about lending money to any business that was showing an ability to pay its debts on a long-term basis.  Most lenders would.  That's why the US never had a problem securing credit and (unless the Republicans go entirely crazy in the current budget talks) still doesn't.  <br />
	<br />
	If we had a sane Congress we'd raise taxes and slice the deficit in half but unfortunately we don't have a sane Congress right now.  So it goes.

Cancel

Community