Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (4022)	8/6/2002 10:36:14 PM
From: SOROS	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

QUESTION FOR ANYONE: If you were approached and offered to take over a company -- totally, everything you would own like a private family owned business -- with these numbers, would you? Net income is about 6.5 billion each year -- that's your profit! You are MAKING 6.5 billion each year -- "spending money", as it were. Answer would be a resounding YES at this point. But, you have a few more questions. What is the business worth? What if I wanted to sell out? Well, the property, plant and equipment are valued at about 50 billion. I'll take it. Sell it, and retire rich! But, maybe a few more questions. If I don't sell, how much are those assets depreciating each year? About 3 billion, but that's just for bookkeeping. I'll still take it. One more thing. The guts are worth about 50 billion, but what about cash and other assets like inventory and money others owe the business? Well, that about 28 billion. I can call it quits for almost 80 billion? I'll take it! Oh, I forgot. If I take this business, will I owe anyone anything? You don't have to sell. Remember, you are MAKING 6.5 billion in PROFIT each year! Why not just live on that? Well surely if I am going to RUN the business, I'll have to keep up the property and expand. How much will that cost me each year? You'd need to spend about 8 billion, but you will also have some investment income. So you're telling me if I run the company, I basically have to spend all my profit on upkeep and expansion -- it's a wash? Well . . . in a word, yes. But you are helping thousands of people with and boosting the economy. Plus, you can issue stock to yourself and get personally very rich! You said this would be like a private company, and I would own it all alone -- all the assets and the liabilities. Okay. I forgot. Let's stay within the rules. Forget about stock. You never answered the question about how much I will owe others if I take this company over. Not much. How much? Very little. How little? About 50 billion. Not a penny more! Let me get this straight. The business is worth about 78 billion, but of course, that is only if someone would buy it. I'm guessing the buyer would have to have plans to run the same type of business or the property and inventory would be worth much less than 1/2 of that? That's probably a safe assumption. So, if I cannot find a suitable new buyer, I'm taking a company that I have to run on borrowed money forever or risk having something worth less than what I would owe? Sort of like owning a new car that a used car dealer would give me $20,000 for but my payoff on the note is $30,000? Do I have that right? Well, if you put it that way, but this is America. No one figures things that way. Look, I'm GIVING you the business. Do you want it or not? Because there are million of people willing to hand others cold, hard cash for pieces of paper that simply say they have "invested" in this company. I don't have to make it private and give it to you. Take it or leave it. Wait a minute. If you give the company to me, won't you owe those people with stock some money? You don't worry about that. Do you want the company "as is" or not? Well, WOULD YOU TAKE IT?

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (4022)	8/7/2002 8:02:05 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

Conflict could soon be nuclear From Roland Watson in Washington Times Online August 07, 2002 THE US Congress has been warned that President Bush’s proposed attack on Iraq could escalate into a nuclear conflict. An assessment of Iraq’s capabilities says that the US is unlikely to knock out many, if any, of President Saddam Hussein’s mobile missile-launchers in a first wave of airstrikes. It raises the possibility of Baghdad hitting an Israeli city with a missile carrying biological agents, saying that Saddam is likely to use chemical and biological weapons. Israel’s likely reaction would be nuclear ground bursts against every Iraqi city not already occupied by US-led coalition forces. Senators were told that, unlike the 1991 Gulf War, when Washington urged Israel not to retaliate against Iraqi missile strikes, Israeli leaders have decided that their credibility would be hurt if they failed to react this time. The assessment was written by Anthony Cordesman, a former Pentagon and State Department official now with the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies. He was a witness before last week’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and chosen to open a national debate on the looming Iraqi conflict. He queried the ability of US forces to use pre-emptive airstrikes to cripple Iraq’s mobile launchers, which would be used for chemical or biological weapons. Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, has alluded to the problems of locating the launchers. Referring to the Gulf War, Mr Cordesman said that, despite contrary claims, the US had not detected most Iraqi chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons and missile capabilities. US and British forces also had “no meaningful success” in finding Scud missile sites, nor were the airstrikes of Operation Desert Fox in 1998, after the departure of UN weapons inspectors, successful. “It’s likely, therefore, that Iraq could succeed in launching some CBRN strikes against US coalition forces, targets in neighbouring states, and / or Israel.”It could take days to characterise biological agents. “Even US forces would only be able to firmly characterise dissemination by observing the lethal effects,” he said. The United Nations secretary-general, Kofi Annan, rejected conditions set by Baghdad for new talks and told Iraq last night he was waiting for a “formal invitation” for UN weapons inspectors to return. Mr Annan said in a letter to Iraq’s foreign minister that new talks must focus on “practical arrangements” for the resumption of inspections. timesonline.co.uk