|
Post by gabi on Mar 15, 2017 22:34:56 GMT
Yeah exactly, his brand is not worth more than all the physical shit he owns, like trump Tower but, it has a value and you won't ever know that value until u out it out for sale and let people bid for it. Could be a dollar or after the presidency if he does a great job it could be billions of billions. Either way, he is most likely a billionaire by some margin. A lot of the value of the properties is in the name though. I mean, without trump, trump tower is just some building youve never heard of. I mean I don't think the Trump Tower without the name would have any meaning. I don't think the value would dip a lot without the Trump brand name. It it is still a skyrscraper on one of New Yorks most lucrative streets, you know? But things like Mar a lago and the golf resorts? defintely.
|
|
|
|
Post by gabi on Mar 15, 2017 22:37:38 GMT
A lot of the value of the properties is in the name though. I mean, without trump, trump tower is just some building youve never heard of. Does Trump own 100% of those buildings? Or just has a majority stake in them? His company is not public and Trump on paper owns all of the organisation. Although I'd have to take a look at it but I do not believe anyone else have a stake in Trump Tower or MAr a lago. Not sure about his golf resorts and hotels though.
|
|
|
|
Post by gabi on Mar 15, 2017 22:40:10 GMT
A lot of the value of the properties is in the name though. I mean, without trump, trump tower is just some building youve never heard of. I mean I don't think the Trump Tower without the name would have any meaning. I don't think the value would dip a lot without the Trump brand name. It it is still a skyrscraper on one of New Yorks most lucrative streets, you know? But things like Mar a lago and the golf resorts? defintely. Also, the hotels, I forgot to mention in this post. Trump hotels has an amazing reputation as a luxury hotel. That would probably suffer without his brand. Majorly
|
|
|
|
Post by gabi on Mar 15, 2017 22:43:46 GMT
I might be wrong about the trump tower it seems. An old article but according to NYTimes condoniums bearing the Trump name sells for 36 % more than comparable apartments close by. Old as I said but impressing to say the least. www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/arts/21iht-trump.3611735.html
|
|
|
|
Post by R.I.P. uncle Teddy on Mar 15, 2017 22:45:56 GMT
A lot of the value of the properties is in the name though. I mean, without trump, trump tower is just some building youve never heard of. Does Trump own 100% of those buildings? Or just has a majority stake in them? Probably depends on the building. I have no idea tbh. I know he built most of the trump towers, and he probably doesn't technically own them, but his coporation(s) probably do.
|
|
|
|
Post by R.I.P. uncle Teddy on Mar 15, 2017 22:49:05 GMT
I mean I don't think the Trump Tower without the name would have any meaning. I don't think the value would dip a lot without the Trump brand name. It it is still a skyrscraper on one of New Yorks most lucrative streets, you know? But things like Mar a lago and the golf resorts? defintely. Also, the hotels, I forgot to mention in this post. Trump hotels has an amazing reputation as a luxury hotel. That would probably suffer without his brand. Majorly I'd think that his name would have a pretty great advertising effect for housing and commercial spots in something like trump tower.
|
|
|
|
Post by R.I.P. uncle Teddy on Mar 15, 2017 22:51:25 GMT
I'm curious how much of a positive/negative effect Trump's campaign and presidency had on his business. I figure it has to be positive after the election.
|
|
|
|
Post by gabi on Mar 15, 2017 22:56:12 GMT
Does Trump own 100% of those buildings? Or just has a majority stake in them? Probably depends on the building. I have no idea tbh. I know he built most of the trump towers, and he probably doesn't technically own them, but his coporation(s) probably do. If his corporation owns it 100 % that means in essence he does. He owns his corporation to 100 %. But there is some resorts bearing the Trump name that has been sold as far as I can gather. I have looked at some figuers, but I cannot find a single other owner of the trump tower other than his organisation for instance. Apart for those owning the condominiums inside the tower, but that's another thing. Its pretty crazy though an apartment at Trump tower is selling for 2800 per square feet. That is insane, and thats me living in Stockholm where a square feet goes for 1k in the shittiest area in the city. BTW it is rumored that Gucci is paying 20 millions a year for their space at trump towers, that just one retailer.
|
|
|
|
Post by bladefd on Mar 15, 2017 22:59:45 GMT
I'm curious how much of a positive/negative effect Trump's campaign and presidency had on his business. I figure it has to be positive after the election. Definitely will help in America with Republicans but not Democrats/liberals. In foreign countries, Trump reputation has been damaged.
|
|
|
|
Post by gabi on Mar 15, 2017 23:01:05 GMT
I'm curious how much of a positive/negative effect Trump's campaign and presidency had on his business. I figure it has to be positive after the election. I think people was quick to jump the gun on saying it took a hit after the negative comments that was flooding around about him. But, I think by and large he will come out on top. Did you know Mar a Lago was built with the intention of becoming the southern white house (Sorry Tom Is Dead for calling Miami south). He bought it after it didn't become the white house for a rebated price, and now he has basically started calling it the southern white house and he is basically branding it into peoples minds. You can bet your ass the value of Mar A Lago will increase. Mar a Lago is a great example btw, since he became the president the fees over there has skyrocketed. Also his sons are expanding currently, they are building new hotels with a different brand names, it is supposed to be a cheaper alternative to Trump Tower and thus won't be as luxurious which led them to not name it Trump but Scion or something.
|
|
|
|
Post by R.I.P. uncle Teddy on Mar 15, 2017 23:04:35 GMT
Probably depends on the building. I have no idea tbh. I know he built most of the trump towers, and he probably doesn't technically own them, but his coporation(s) probably do. If his corporation owns it 100 % that means in essence he does. He owns his corporation to 100 %. But there is some resorts bearing the Trump name that has been sold as far as I can gather. I have looked at some figuers, but I cannot find a single other owner of the trump tower other than his organisation for instance. Apart for those owning the condominiums inside the tower, but that's another thing. Its pretty crazy though an apartment at Trump tower is selling for 2800 per square feet. That is insane, and thats me living in Stockholm where a square feet goes for 1k in the shittiest area in the city. BTW it is rumored that Gucci is paying 20 millions a year for their space at trump towers, that just one retailer. There is a legal difference between him owning it outright and his corporations owning it though. I don't know the details, but there are tax and liability differences.
|
|
|
|
Post by R.I.P. uncle Teddy on Mar 15, 2017 23:07:26 GMT
I'm curious how much of a positive/negative effect Trump's campaign and presidency had on his business. I figure it has to be positive after the election. I think people was quick to jump the gun on saying it took a hit after the negative comments that was flooding around about him. But, I think by and large he will come out on top. Did you know Mar a Lago was built with the intention of becoming the southern white house (Sorry Tom Is Dead for calling Miami south). He bought it after it didn't become the white house for a rebated price, and now he has basically started calling it the southern white house and he is basically branding it into peoples minds. You can bet your ass the value of Mar A Lago will increase. Mar a Lago is a great example btw, since he became the president the fees over there has skyrocketed. Also his sons are expanding currently, they are building new hotels with a different brand names, it is supposed to be a cheaper alternative to Trump Tower and thus won't be as luxurious which led them to not name it Trump but Scion or something. I think it depends on the property. I read that a lot of businesses pulled out of using trump's hotels because they felt like it was a political statement to rent them out for business purposes. Something like Maralago will probably be worth more.
|
|
|
|
Post by bladefd on Mar 15, 2017 23:09:51 GMT
I really don't know why people think Trump is a blue collar guy lol. How can the average American even connect with him with the property and companies under his name? People were saying they couldn't connect with Hillary for being out of touch with the average citizen, which was true, but how is Trump any different?
I started thinking and realized this guy is more out of touch with average American than Hillary even. Truly insane what has happened to politics in America.
|
|
|
|
Post by R.I.P. uncle Teddy on Mar 15, 2017 23:14:45 GMT
Hillary just has a very technocratic nanny state view of the world which is hard to relate to, while Trump is almost a Jacksonian populist, the complete opposite end of the spectrum.
|
|
|
|
Post by bladefd on Mar 16, 2017 22:00:52 GMT
..... 10% raise to the military for whatever paranoid reason and even 7% raise to Homeland security.. Everything else notable getting cuts, some massive cuts. I hope Congress doesn't pass this and makes alterations. Why does the military need 10% raise? Jeez..
There is also like 2 billion funding in there for the wall for this year.. Next year will also be $2 billion more. We are definitely paying for the wall directly through tax money. Fuck you, Trump.
|
|
|
|
Post by gabi on Mar 16, 2017 22:35:55 GMT
..... 10% raise to the military for whatever paranoid reason and even 7% raise to Homeland security.. Everything else notable getting cuts, some massive cuts. I hope Congress doesn't pass this and makes alterations. Why does the military need 10% raise? Jeez.. There is also like 2 billion funding in there for the wall for this year.. Next year will also be $2 billion more. We are definitely paying for the wall directly through tax money. Fuck you, Trump. That's not a surprise, Donald has had slight libertarian tendencies and also speaking about gutting regulations. Also, are you surprised the Republicans are for a small government and a bigger private sector? That has been their ideology for decades. Also US doesn't really spend outrageous sums on the military, at least compared to other countries who has a relatively high threat level. The militaries job today, at least for US is not nessecarily to go to war but rather be imposing, protect ship lanes, trade routes etc. If no one dares to fuck with them, they are doing their job.
|
|
|
|
Post by R.I.P. uncle Teddy on Mar 18, 2017 3:44:59 GMT
Yeah, the US is basically at a new post WW2 low for military spending as a % of GDP every year. It was like 15% in the 50s (which was ludicrous) and it's only like 3-4% now, which tbh is pretty damn small when you consider most of it is going to pensions, salaries, etc. Idk if an increase is in order, but 4-5% wouldn't be a big deal at all. Also he should cut entitlements, not stuff that is an investment like he's doing. Dumb bitch. I'm pretty sure he's just taking this hard line as a negotiating position though. It'll be somewhere in between this and something else.
|
|
|
|
Post by R.I.P. uncle Teddy on Mar 18, 2017 3:45:28 GMT
I want the Paul Ryan "CUT ALL THE ENTITLEMENTS" budget!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by bladefd on Mar 18, 2017 6:29:26 GMT
Yeah, the US is basically at a new post WW2 low for military spending as a % of GDP every year. It was like 15% in the 50s (which was ludicrous) and it's only like 3-4% now, which tbh is pretty damn small when you consider most of it is going to pensions, salaries, etc. Idk if an increase is in order, but 4-5% wouldn't be a big deal at all. Also he should cut entitlements, not stuff that is an investment like he's doing. Dumb bitch. I'm pretty sure he's just taking this hard line as a negotiating position though. It'll be somewhere in between this and something else. I don't want to see a 10% increase in military though per year. We would be going up from around $600 billion to 660 billion.. Unnecessary to do if you are cutting other things. Either leave the military spending where it is or cut a bit (I prefer a small cut). I am not willing to look at military spending as a % of GDP juxtaposed to that of the 60s because the overall budget/GDP is much larger than in the 50s/60s. Plus, the way wars are fought has changed significantly.. We are heading more towards cyberwarfare, which doesn't require the same sorts of resources as ICBMs or massive ship numbers. Anyways, a single carrier group (with nuclear powered aircraft carrier + subs) is also more powerful than anything we had in the 50s. We also have drones and high-tech satellites. The latest F35s are coming into play soon as well and we still have the stealth bombers. There was none of that back in the day. Only thing I would consider is upgrading the missile defense system (PATRIOT system is outdated).
|
|
|
|
Post by bladefd on Mar 18, 2017 6:30:48 GMT
I want the Paul Ryan "CUT ALL THE ENTITLEMENTS" budget!!!!!! So you want them to cut medicare/medicaid/social security? Good luck passing that through Congress lol. Social security have been widely successful since FDR pushed for it and medicare has been successful as well. Medicaid has grown significantly and something needs to be done there.
|
|
|
|
Post by bladefd on Mar 18, 2017 6:39:07 GMT
I haven't seen any good ideas of how to deal with medicare/medicaid/social security tbh.. Very costly programs but so many people rely on them for insurance and supplementary income, especially older people and disabled.
I don't mind increasing medicare age to 67 considering people live much longer than when Medicare was first implemented. That would help. What else can you do? Without outright canceling it altogether.
Edit: the more I think about it, the more I continue returning to the issue of insurance/healthcare sector. I think that is the biggest issue we face in all this, including a HUGE chunk of entitlements. Premiums keep rising, medicare/medicaid keeps costing more, meds continue to get more expensive, treatments are very very inconsistent in cost from hospital to hospital, etc. I think that needs to be focused on rather than focusing on the entitlements because if you could solve healthcare issue then entitlements will be solved as well (excluding social security).
|
|
|
|
Post by R.I.P. uncle Teddy on Mar 19, 2017 3:00:06 GMT
As a % of the economy the budget might be smaller. Although I'm not certain. And as a % of GDP is really the only reasonable way to compare budgets because of inflation. And really it's a moot point because every other budget in the world is larger too, barring a country like Russia or former empires like the UK maybe. Not really, no. Cyber warfare is in addition to conventional warfare, not replacing it. Every nation has more advanced tech than anything in the 50s....the US relative military power compared to most of the post WW2 20th century is minuscule.  , and other countries have similar systems. Actually one of the few things other countries don't have is a system similar to our missile defense shield lol. It's the only one in the world that has real world testing and is effective at some level. The relative size shrink in the military is a bit concerning. Tecnologically we might have as large of a gap as ever (maybe, hard to say) but the size of the military is pretty small when considering the growth of China. I mean, hopefully we never become true rivals, but it's better that we have a head start for when they catch up to us economically.
|
|
|
|
Post by bladefd on Mar 19, 2017 6:44:03 GMT
Every nation has more advanced tech than anything in the 50s....the US relative military power compared to most of the post WW2 20th century is minuscule.  , and other countries have similar systems. Actually one of the few things other countries don't have is a system similar to our missile defense shield lol. It's the only one in the world that has real world testing and is effective at some level. The relative size shrink in the military is a bit concerning. Tecnologically we might have as large of a gap as ever (maybe, hard to say) but the size of the military is pretty small when considering the growth of China. I mean, hopefully we never become true rivals, but it's better that we have a head start for when they catch up to us economically. 1) The US military power relative to other nations is miniscule?I beg to differ. Lets break it down between air force, navy and army. Lets start with the gem of the US military. Air Force. No country on Earth comes close when we break it down. We have the greatest stealth bombers the world has ever seen. Countries are still just catching up with the F22 Raptors and we have the F35s coming into play very soon. We have B2 stealth bombers, which no other country's stealth bomber comes close. We used to have the F117 in the arsenal but the F22 can do the same things even better so F117 was retired recently. F16 has been passed by other countries -- latest MIGs are on par with the F22 afaik. No MIG currently on active list or coming active soon can touch the F35. USA has complete and utter domination of the air force. Minuscule? Hah! Lets look at the navy next. USA has 20 nuclear subs and aircraft carriers. Planet Earth, excluding USA, owns 22 aircraft carriers. United States owns 19 carriers and we are not even including the 3 new carriers coming into the fleet as soon as construction finishes. USA has plans for building even more aircraft carriers. Keep in mind only 1 of the aircraft carriers not owned by America is nuclear powered. Every other nuclear aircraft carrier is in US hands. We have the fastest, quietest and deepest diving nuclear subs (how fast or much it can dive is classified). America is the only country with all subs being nuclear - ALL! Navy is not even close to rest of the world. 30yrs ago, USSR was close but since early 90s, it is a blowout! Minuscule? Hah! Army starts to get close. Chinese Army would be somewhat close due to the sheer numbers. This one I guess numbers do matter. We do have the best tanks in the world. Throw M1A1 Abrams in almost any battlefield, and it will take on any tank out there with both mobility and straight up strike. Marines, special forces, best in the world. If we look at the army foot soldiers though then we can argue there between numbers (Chinese) and quality of training (USA). Numbers may eventually overpower quality. Not much we can do here. Intelligence agencies? Best in the world. Nukes? Needs some upgrading but compared to rest of the world, still best of the best. As far as the PATRIOT system goes, it may the most battle tested but it has some limitations. Check out the new system Russia is going to be deploying soon.  , it is not battle tested, but it has some huge advantages over the PATRIOT system, such as the number of ground to air missiles you can put in a single battery + much quicker reload time. We need to upgrade our PATRIOT system to match what the Russians are putting out.
|
|
|
|
Post by bladefd on Mar 20, 2017 1:15:49 GMT
R.I.P. uncle Teddy As far as cyberwarfare is involved, it is by far the #1 threat faced today and going forward as deemed by the FBI director few years back. The way wars are fought has changed - there is much smaller chance of wars being fought through traditional means. Of course, I'm not saying traditional means don't/won't happen but 90% of the wars are fought today through cyber means. We are at a time when cyberweapons can do as much, if not more damage than traditional means. Databases and emails contain pearl gem of damaging information. Can you see China or Russia declaring war with America? Before that happens, they will and already have struck through cyber means. Same with terrorists - they can do more damage through massive DDoS attack shutting down DoD or acquiring classified information through hacking emails/databases or something rather than striking a building or some where. They also don't need to be there in person or need high tech equipment + easier to hide your tracks through vpn/proxies/etc so that changes everything.
|
|
|
|
Post by R.I.P. uncle Teddy on Mar 20, 2017 2:57:21 GMT
1) The US military power relative to other nations is miniscule?I beg to differ. Lets break it down between air force, navy and army. No. Relative to what it was in the past (in comparison to other nations) In the 60s it was designed to be dominant enough to win a war against both the Soviet Union (A true superpower) and China (Which, while economically weak still boasted a powerful military compared to American allies)
|
|
|
|
Post by bladefd on Mar 20, 2017 6:05:15 GMT
1) The US military power relative to other nations is miniscule?I beg to differ. Lets break it down between air force, navy and army. No. Relative to what it was in the past (in comparison to other nations) In the 60s it was designed to be dominant enough to win a war against both the Soviet Union (A true superpower) and China (Which, while economically weak still boasted a powerful military compared to American allies) Our closest rival were the Soviets in the period you are referring to. Nobody knows how USSR vs USA would have gone back then unless if we went nuclear. No country has ever truly been successful in bringing the fight to mainland USSR and succeeding, which I am sure you know as a student of history. Who are our modern day Soviets? Even when we look in relative terms, the truth is no nation comes close when we break down the firepower/technology that America holds today vs the 60s. In fact, since the 1960s, America has drawn an even bigger distance overall from the other superpowers in pure firepower and technology. Cyberwarfare will minimize some of that distance for the aforementioned reasons in previous post, but if we look at strictly traditional weaponry, I am sorry but there is no match. Whether we look at it in absolute or relative terms. Chinese and Russian army can hold its own vs American army, but once you bring the airforce and navy into the mix, it is game over. I will go as far as to say that if we want to pick a fight with either of them, you would choose that day to be today rather than 50 years ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by bladefd on Mar 21, 2017 6:21:28 GMT
It seems to be that way. I don't know much about tax law at all. As for his net worth I doubt he even knows. His assets are so disparate, and a lot of value is in the brand like you said. Yeah exactly, his brand is not worth more than all the physical shit he owns, like trump Tower but, it has a value and you won't ever know that value until u out it out for sale and let people bid for it. Could be a dollar or after the presidency if he does a great job it could be billions of billions. Either way, he is most likely a billionaire by some margin. Forbes just released their list of net-worth of billionaires and dropped Trump quite a bit to $3.5 billion. www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2017/03/20/trump-drops-220-spots-on-forbes-list-of-billionaires/?utm_term=.b68b810c1414But you are still right. In the end, you are worth what you can sell yourself for.. Just look at the Clippers. Almost nobody thought they would sell for more than $1 billion, but they did. That alone raised the value of basketball teams pretty much across the board overnight. Nobody knows how much Trump can get for his assets without putting them on the open market..
|
|
|
|
Post by bladefd on Mar 21, 2017 20:29:06 GMT
|
|
|