Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The other billionaire WH2020 hopeful spends some money and get
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The other billionaire WH2020 hopeful spends some money and gets some good early state polling numbers
So far I don’t think there has been a mention at all on PB of Tom Steyer even though he is still very much in the race for the Democratic nomination and is one of the select few who are still qualifying to take part in the TV debates.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
It's now an immutable rule that anyone using the term 'woke' is a tosser.
https://twitter.com/talkRADIO/status/1215323970565812224?s=20
I hope he does well and can shake up the race.
His wife looks to be formidable too.
All these traits contrast with the present president.
They do have in common lack of political experience, but, again by contrast, the Steyers look to be capable of learning.
It's hard to see it if you've never gone through it.
Anyone who obsesses about class has issues.
Some people cannot accept working class people doing well whilst their own lives are failures.
https://twitter.com/otto_english/status/1215390335515471872?s=21
FPT:-
Morris_Dancer said:
“How they try and square the funding circle will determine public perceptions going forward, it seems.”
Exactly. I don’t think anyone sensible should have a problem with them living a private life, doing charitable stuff and/or earning a living (the Duke of Gloucester, for instance, worked as an architect), provided:-
1. They don’t also expect the public funding and privileges of being a royal (eg being gifted luxurious houses done up at public expense).
2. They don’t exploit their links with our Head of State In an unseemly manner to benefit themselves financially. Sussex biscuits are one thing. Selling access to Royals a la Fergie is not.
3. They take sensible advice about who they associate with - unlike, say, Andrew.
4. They understand that if they take public stances on matters of public interest, like anyone else doing so, they should expect comment and criticism. Just as Prince Charles has faced or anyone else in public life.
They should also display a bit more consideration for and politeness to HMQ. Issuing a statement mentioning her without informing her is very impolite and is deservedly criticised. Politeness costs nothing.
Their statement is a bit ambiguous on point 1. Half in / half out is not on.
It is not clear how they will address point 2.
They would be very well advised to take point 3 on board.
On 4 they seem to want to be able to speak but then claim harassment if people point out the obvious hypocrisy of, say, lecturing about climate change while flying in private jets.
And no - it is not just them. Charles rightly faced exactly the same criticism when years ago he visited Romania and had one of his Rolls Royces driven out there just so that he could loll around in it for a bit. So they need to be a bit more grown up about that. Meghan is American. She should understand the importance of a free press.
Watching celebrities using the press for their own purposes and then moaning when their PR campaigns don’t go to plan is one of the more nauseating spectacles of our time.
All these issues should now be addressed by them and the Palace quietly and quickly, a clear joint statement made and they get on with it. In the meanwhile leave them alone.
Personally I also think titles should not be bestowed on minor royals but only on those in the direct line of succession. The example of Princess Anne and her children should have been followed. All grandchildren etc should be commoners. Only the heirs should get a title. Only those heirs and those who actually work as Royals eg Anne should get any sort of funding and only for their work, not their lifestyles.
The royals show just how malleable is the human brain, if you get them early, but not necessarily if the brain is tiny.
Would anyone be kind enough to offer some thoughts on at what point (if any) they would consider cash in the bank on a balance sheet having greater subjective value than its equivalent as an asset (trade debtor)?
For example, would a business that had 50k in cash and 75k in assets be worth more than a business that had 25k in cash and 100k in assets? What about 0 in cash and 125k in assets (cash-flow issues??)
Assuming the assets are all debts owed to the business. I’m thinking risk of recovery and the time-value of recovery.
Ultimately the Monarchy is an institution and it's about who they are and what they represent. Yes, they're expected to attend events and smile for photos, but that isn't really what they are being paid for.
Once a debt is overdue different issues occur.
I note that even after I wrote the second half of my first sentence I instantly added a proviso so in reality cash is king, any debt slightly less.
Not bog off to Los Angeles.
It sounds as though you're trying to answer a slightly unusual question, though; can you provide more context?
Subjectively, some people (the more cautious and prudently-minded) would value cash in the bank much more that a trade debt. Conversely, a person with a high risk mentality would be happier with debtors even though conversion to cash is not guaranteed.
Which would be a pretty agricultural way of assessing it.
https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1215450497085321217
I’m actually answering a legal question about “consideration” in contract law and the rule in Foakes v Beer re. part-payment of a debt in return for a promise not to enforce said debt. (Basic stuff, I know...)
I’m framing my answer around commercial reality and just wanted to make sure the points I want to make regarding how “cash is king” are sound but I didn’t want to oversell the argument.
Actually in my example I was working under the assumption that the trade debts were all past the due date.
The President’s Speech on Christmas Day would be the most watched show of the year.
"Emily Thornberry, whose leadership campaign is struggling to take wing, now declares that the people around Mr Corbyn worried her. This is the gang she was campaigning to put into Downing Street. It is a good thing the rest of us acted on what she thought rather than what she said. "
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ebb35fee-32fd-11ea-b8ef-1301adfca080
In reality, we either have royals or someone elected.
Sanders 28%
Biden 25%
Warren 16%
Bloomberg 10%
Buttigieg 8%
Yang 5%
Steyer 5%
Booker 3%
https://
fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/mkt/13/810
/808/Topline%20Reuters%202020%20Democratic%20Primary%20Tracker%2001%2009%202020.pdf
…
That tells you everything about the Queen’s moral fibre.
Have you been told about the new study techniques the cool kids are using (and which does explain the part of grade inflation that is not due to easier questions and more motivated children)? Active recall, spaced repetition and so on? They might assume you know all this from school.
Also, google, youtube and wikipedia. Just googling your question comes up with Deloitte's thoughts on the matter.
https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/in/Documents/risk/Corporate Governance/Audit Committee/in-gc-guality-of-financial-position-the-balance-sheet-and-beyond-noexp.pdf
(Interesting the URL has a g in quality -- dodgy ocr?)
But that is not the point. PB's experts can answer the question. Just checking you know to work smart, not hard. When I was first a student, it did not even occur to me to look at past papers!
As others have mentioned, different people with different risk aversions perhaps subjectively view these things differently.
I also assume different industries view these things differently. Ones with tighter margins and therefore higher likelihood of cash-flow problems probably but a great subjective value to cash.
All fuel for the fire!
Given some of the stuff coming out of the US, I'm not sure the Americans want to get to the truth...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-51053205
40 years or something would be the equivalent.
After we actually leave on Jan 31 it will vanish entirely as a first order issue
Just what the country is demanding right now!!!!! This will really get Labour back on track after their worst defeat since 1935.
Well done Clive!
I keep making the point that Brexit is abstract, even now. No one cares because it means different things to different people.
When it becomes real, with real effects, then who knows.
Obviously all of this is a moot point if RLB is Labour leader.
Monarchy referendum how good would that be?
Generally they tend not to be leadership material though and when they do get into leadership positions the end result tends not to be good for them or their party.
https://www.ft.com/content/6912d43a-3275-11ea-9703-eea0cae3f0de
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7830177/Brussels-hints-demand-Brexit-EXTENSION-agree-UK-trade-deal-leaves-EU.html
There will be a bare bones deal on goods. Just enough. It will be sellotape and glue. And the city will get temporary rights as the eu panics about access to liquidity
They expected us to blink and revote, Just like every other country. We didn’t. It’s a different game now, and over time a reasonable deal will be done.
Do you seriously think that the everyday person won’t notice any negatives between what we have now and a “bare bones trade deal on goods”?