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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (316156)	12/17/2006 9:29:45 PM
From: 10K a day	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573494

plywood boy knows stuff.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (316156)	12/17/2006 9:45:24 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573494

what are all the federal lands worth moron?? and the oil and minerals on them, moron ??

To: RetiredNow who wrote (316156)	12/29/2006 5:14:56 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573494

"Net Worth" doesn't mean as much when your talking about an organization with the power to tax. If the debt is going to be paid for buy taxes, then owning more land, while it would increase the net worth, wouldn't be that meaningful. If the federal government gave up some of its land, but received useful tax revenue from it, it might help the fiscal situation more than owning the land does, even if the government doesn't receive a high price for the land. The federal government's main asset is its power to tax. That isn't included in the report. It probably can't be, and maybe shouldn't be, but excluding it does exclude a real asset of tremendous dollar value. Also your original post said "The US has a negative $9 trillion Net Worth." Note, not "federal net worth", but "The US". The US is more than just the federal government. Add up all American assets and subtract debt, and you don't get a negative result. Edit - And apparently the report doesn't include government held land, and apparently misses some other assets so it overstates its case about federal net worth, even if you don't consider the power to tax. Edit - Re: Message 23111048 I am pissed off about government spending, but "I wan't the government to spend less" doesn't equal "I support the contension that the US has a negative net worth".