-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
It depends on how much leverage he used to buy the land. If he borrowed 95% and only paid 5% down, then the value of the land drops by 30% to 40% in recent years, what value does the owner have?
Not much or negative.
Trump's dustup with Australian PM is apparently fully rational from a US perspective. To understand this one needs to dig into letters to the editor in recent Sydney Morning Telegraph issues to discover the rather sordid truths causing DJT to bail on this whole crisis and refuse further US involvement. Few if any in the US Media have done so, choosing to assume instead that the Pres is simply clueless etc. But in this case he sees that he is being out-biased/bigotted by the Aussies themselves! Before you jump over to the SMT grab a map of PNG (Papua New Guinea) which shows the small island of Manus directly to the north, and also the tiny speck hundreds of miles to the east (Nauru) which are the two locales that house the 1200 prisoners. Then cogitate on the lilly white history of Oz that is based on 'illegal immigration' being defined as 'arriving by boat' vs by plane or perhaps 'steamship'! Clearly the Pres did not want to get into this kettle of fish while on his first phone call with the worthy PM and ended the call. And lets give him credit for knowing ahead of time that all Obama ever agreed on was to 'consider' this crisis as an issue that the US might provide some help on, or not. The ball is properly back in Aussie's court.
--
--
raincityjerry
Member
The Musk association with Trump is very troubling and reflects badly on all of us as Tesla owners. I recently sent a message to Musk telling him to cease his collaboration with the fascist regime NOW or I will not buy another Tesla. I am in line to buy a Model 3, but will ask for my deposit back. Imagine how much Musk's association with Trump will cost Tesla if they have to refund only half the deposits on Model 3! About $150 million. Join me if you agree and let Musk know we love his car, but there is a limit!
SpiceWare
Member
No it doesn't. It's better Musk is there having some positive influence than to have Trump surround by a bunch of yes men.
Go ahead and cancel your deposit, I'll just get my 3 sooner.
Go ahead and cancel your deposit, I'll just get my 3 sooner.
jelloslug
Active Member
While I personally don't agree with Trump on several philosophies, sticking you head in the sand and refusing to try and change what is going on by not doing anything positive is not going to help anything. Musk knows this and is doing what he can to steer policy back toward the middle of the road.
Well since the Federal Government is owns 28% of the land in the US (nearly all of it west of Kansas), I guess he's the largest landowner right now.
You must be a blast to go shopping with. Which product classifications are apolitical to you? I can make up political reasons not to buy (or to buy) anything based on the politics of today. The Democrats have just proven anything is evil if you look at it the right way.
HillCountryFun
Member
While it is true that many folks are confused by Elon's participating on Trumps councils, his actual reasons are very much aligned with his companies missions. If you did deeper than the headlines you'll find that Elon is continuing to push for a variety of goals in support of renewable energy consumption and production. The biggest impact that he can achieve with this effort is to influence the implementation of a carbon tax on non-renewable energy producers. We are actually very lucky that Musk's companies have become massive employers and manufacturing leaders as he then becomes attractive to Trump's efforts.
I've been watching Elon for almost a decade and he's just as true to his mission now as he has ever been. Hang in there, watch and see what happens and support with your purchases if you so desire.
muleferg
Active Member
>
Well since the Federal Government is owns 28% of the land in the US (nearly all of it west of Kansas), I guess he's the largest landowner right now.[McRat]
'Landowner' is the wrong term I believe. In the case of land under 'standing or flowing water' that land is [fact] owned by the people of the USA. Similarly one can assume the same to be the case with BLM land in the West which was granted alternately: one square to the Railroad, next square to the USA, etc. Federal Govt acts as managing agent for all us citizens as it were.
--
Well since the Federal Government is owns 28% of the land in the US (nearly all of it west of Kansas), I guess he's the largest landowner right now.[McRat]
'Landowner' is the wrong term I believe. In the case of land under 'standing or flowing water' that land is [fact] owned by the people of the USA. Similarly one can assume the same to be the case with BLM land in the West which was granted alternately: one square to the Railroad, next square to the USA, etc. Federal Govt acts as managing agent for all us citizens as it were.
--
Similar threads
