4 ms·

Context for those who aren't up to date. InfoWars does tens of millions in revenue per year, but is nothing without Alex Jones. A Jones-friendly bid was made

Context for those who aren't up to date. InfoWars does tens of millions in revenue per year, but is nothing without Alex Jones. A Jones-friendly bid was made for $3.5M, while Onion bidded $1.75M. Onion won the 'auction' (where you get a single bid, and no knowledge of other bids), because with their bid also came commitments from some of the Sandy Hook families to drop their claims for compensation ($1.5B in total). This $1.5B was never collectable in the first place.

hmcq6 2y ago
I'm gonna need a community note on this "context" By what logic was this $1.5 B not collectible in the first place? Edit: Also > The Onion estimates its total bid value is $7 million.
- explain 2y ago
  It would only be possible to collect the money if he has it, which he doesn't. It may be $7 million in total value, but I believe the actual money was $1.75M. The other $5M would be uncollectible debt being forgiven.
  - hmcq6 2y ago
    Did you mean to say "liquid"? Obviously he doesn't have $1.5 Billion liquid, no one does. But to try dismiss most of the debt as "uncollectible" while discussing how one of the many assets Jones owns is worth millions of dollars... That *literally is process of collections*. Hence the sarcastic request for a community note.
- Arnt 2y ago
  Collectable means that you can collect. If you have a judgment of $1M with a use-by date of 30 years, then that's collectable if and only if the person's current assets plus future earnings add up to $1M.
  - hmcq6 2y ago
    > InfoWars does tens of millions in revenue per year, but is nothing without Alex Jones. * (multiplied by) > use-by date of 30 years So then it would be $1.2B "uncollectible" not the whole $1.5B. But also... what is a Use-By date on collections? Is there a statue of limitations on non-dischargable debt? This sounds made up.
    - Arnt 2y ago
      Almost everything in law expires, because law is to be reasonable, and not having an expiry is generally unreasonable. For example: When you do due diligence while buying a house or a company, collections are one of the things you need to check. How far back do you need to check the archives? It would be unreasonable to require you to go all the way back. So there's a limit, and it's set so high that it doesn't matter for everyday life, yet low enough that the lawyers and notaries who check the archives can do their job practically. Where I live, a collection expires after 30 years, but it may be much less, there are usually other relevant rules. A single-digit number of years is not unusual in case of collections against a person. (BTW, you're confusing revenue with either profit or cash on hand. Profit is revenue minus costs, and the costs are usually a much bigger than the profit.)
      - hmcq6 2y ago
        If you issue someone a debt as punishment and then absolve it later because it was never something the person could pay in the time frame you gave them then you're just admitting the punishment was unreasonable from the start. > Where I live Lovely but not the case here. There is no "Use-by" date on Jones's debt. Even if he dies his estate will still owe the debt.

hmcq6 2y ago

I'm gonna need a community note on this "context" By what logic was this $1.5 B not collectible in the first place? Edit: Also > The Onion estimates its total bid value is $7 million.

explain 2y ago
It would only be possible to collect the money if he has it, which he doesn't. It may be $7 million in total value, but I believe the actual money was $1.75M. The other $5M would be uncollectible debt being forgiven.
- hmcq6 2y ago
  Did you mean to say "liquid"? Obviously he doesn't have $1.5 Billion liquid, no one does. But to try dismiss most of the debt as "uncollectible" while discussing how one of the many assets Jones owns is worth millions of dollars... That *literally is process of collections*. Hence the sarcastic request for a community note.
Arnt 2y ago
Collectable means that you can collect. If you have a judgment of $1M with a use-by date of 30 years, then that's collectable if and only if the person's current assets plus future earnings add up to $1M.
- hmcq6 2y ago
  > InfoWars does tens of millions in revenue per year, but is nothing without Alex Jones. * (multiplied by) > use-by date of 30 years So then it would be $1.2B "uncollectible" not the whole $1.5B. But also... what is a Use-By date on collections? Is there a statue of limitations on non-dischargable debt? This sounds made up.
  - Arnt 2y ago
    Almost everything in law expires, because law is to be reasonable, and not having an expiry is generally unreasonable. For example: When you do due diligence while buying a house or a company, collections are one of the things you need to check. How far back do you need to check the archives? It would be unreasonable to require you to go all the way back. So there's a limit, and it's set so high that it doesn't matter for everyday life, yet low enough that the lawyers and notaries who check the archives can do their job practically. Where I live, a collection expires after 30 years, but it may be much less, there are usually other relevant rules. A single-digit number of years is not unusual in case of collections against a person. (BTW, you're confusing revenue with either profit or cash on hand. Profit is revenue minus costs, and the costs are usually a much bigger than the profit.)
    - hmcq6 2y ago
      If you issue someone a debt as punishment and then absolve it later because it was never something the person could pay in the time frame you gave them then you're just admitting the punishment was unreasonable from the start. > Where I live Lovely but not the case here. There is no "Use-by" date on Jones's debt. Even if he dies his estate will still owe the debt.