Politics 🤡 Donald Trump

Highlights Only

NZWarriors.com

miket12 said:
I honestly don't think you can call him one way or the other.... just deranged and dangerous.

Someone on the right doesn't legislate to prevent companies buying mortgagee/forced sales.... they'd encourage that in the name of "free enterprise".
Click to expand...
Economically sure I could see that - deranged and dangerous absolutely....he is the nominated head of the Republicans, a possible billionaire (mafioso), a white supremacist and an authoritarian dictator who has descended into fascism though
 
Rizzah said:
While Frank licks his wounds; I'd like to interject with some Govt bond/debt chat.

$38 trillion in US federal debt is not debt like you or I have. This is where people get tripped up. Even politicians, financial experts, and economists often treat sovereign Govt debt like a household mortgage or loan obligation. It is not, and I’ll break down why.

There was discussion earlier about California’s state debt. That is real debt, like our own council’s debt. Cali uses US dollars but cannot create them. It must collect taxes or borrow (via state bonds) to accommodate spending. Like you or I with a mortgage, that debt must be repaid from future income. That’s the constraint.

Conflating this with US federal debt, or with China’s bond holdings, misses the point. Sovereign Govt debt works differently.
When a sovereign Govt (NZ, US, China, Australia, UK, Japan, Canada, etc.) issues bonds in its own currency, it does not borrow like a household, a business, Cali, or Auckland Council to fund spending. Bond issuance is part of central bank operations to manage base money liquidity and control interest rates.

Sovereign Govts create new digital money when they spend. The central bank credits bank accounts for every Govt payment: wages, pensions, benefits, healthcare, education, infrastructure, contracts. The money is created at the moment of spending.
Govt bonds are an asset swap. The Govt exchanges interest-bearing IOUs (bonds/treasuries) for excess reserves in the banking system created by prior Govt spending. Spending happens first. Bond issuance follows. The Govt is not waiting for tax revenue or “borrowing” in order to spend.

NZ, the US, China, the UK, Japan, Australia and Canada – each issues bonds in its own currency.
None can run out of the currency they create.
Govt bonds issued in a sovereign currency are considered risk-free in the technical sense – meaning they carry no default risk, not that they are free from price or interest-rate risk.
The issuer controls the currency in which the bond obligation is created and can always ensure settlement at maturity. That’s an operational fact, not a political claim.

No.
Bonds are fixed-term assets. If China sells US Treasuries, it sells them on the secondary market. The US Govt is not involved. This does not materially affect the US Govt’s ability to spend US dollars.
Physical cash can cross borders, but physical cash is a tiny fraction of modern money. Most money exists as digital balances within banking systems. China’s bond holdings are claims recorded within the US financial system.
When China sells those bonds, it sells them to whoever wants to buy them – banks, pension funds, or other institutions. China receives US dollars. The buyer receives the bond. The US Govt is not part of that transaction. The assets simply change hands within the same system.

Sovereign Govts do not owe their spending power to external players*. Bonds are denominated in the currency the Govt itself issues. The central bank can always purchase bonds if needed. In consolidated terms, the state’s liabilities are recorded within its own central bank accounting framework.

Flipping this around, what we call “national debt” is more accurately private sector savings (that's us!). For the Govt it is an accounting entry; for the private sector it is a financial asset. Every dollar of Govt debt is a dollar someone else holds. Should we talk about how that debt is accumulated and distributed? Absolutely – but that’s a different discussion.

Govts are currency issuers. They face real 'resource' constraints: workers, materials, energy, and productive capacity.
Everyone else is a currency user. We face financial constraints.
Confusing the two creates fear about problems that do not exist.

* Unless a Govt borrows in foreign currency, in which case it does cede monetary sovereignty for that portion of debt.
** Banks also create money, but through lending. Different mechanics.

Click to expand...

A lot to unpack there and you’re obviously far more competent than myself in this area but it’s not coming from my own view with it being limited, but others. Probably an alarmist piece but at the same time holding this sort of debt as opposed to other countries surely has challenges? Also the volatility of America and what trump is creating with countries known as allies and trade deals like those with Europe on hold surely plays a part in considering America’s ability to service the debt?



Also those watching on surely will be interested to see the outcome of the $500 million he’s holding in a Qatari account from oil seized and how that’s used with trump’s fortune growing hugely on his first year. I think many countries will be careful in dealing with America under this administration and the countries that are reportedly willing to join his board of peace are the polar opposite of that banner
 

NZWarriors.com

NZWarriors.com

Noitall said:

A lot to unpack there and you’re obviously far more competent than myself in this area but it’s not coming from my own view with it being limited, but others. Probably an alarmist piece but at the same time holding this sort of debt as opposed to other countries surely has challenges? Also the volatility of America and what trump is creating with countries known as allies and trade deals like those with Europe on hold surely plays a part in considering America’s ability to service the debt?



Also those watching on surely will be interested to see the outcome of the $500 million he’s holding in a Qatari account from oil seized and how that’s used with trump’s fortune growing hugely on his first year. I think many countries will be careful in dealing with America under this administration and the countries that are reportedly willing to join his board of peace are the polar opposite of that banner
Click to expand...

Most fiscal commentary, like the articles from Fortune and CNN, is written from an orthodox macro framework. That framework focuses on debt-to-GDP ratios, interest costs, investor confidence, fiscal sustainability, and political risk. Those are legitimate economic considerations, and they’re the lens most economists and journalists are trained to use.
Where it falls short is in separating economic outcomes from how money is created and settled. Orthodox models focus on credit, borrowing, and balance sheet constraints, and largely ignore sovereign money creation as a routine operational fact. That gap is where much of the confusion creeps in.

One thing debt-to-GDP commentary often misses is that GDP isn’t fixed. It’s not an external constraint. GDP responds directly to policy choices.
Targeted public investment that lowers costs for working people and firms across healthcare, education, transport, energy, housing, and R&D expands productive capacity and raises economic activity. That improves debt-to-GDP outcomes by increasing GDP and lowering the ratio.

When those investments are avoided in the name of “fiscal discipline”, growth is weaker and debt ratios often worsen. Policies framed as responsible end up being self-defeating, and often destructive.
We’re seeing this play out here in NZ under the current coalition. Public investment has been cut back in the name of fiscal discipline. Growth has weakened, and public debt has increased.
The Govt’s response is to push for more cuts, despite the clear damage the policy has already caused.

Ray Dalio’s comment in the Fortune article shows the orthodox lens at work. He says, “Do you print money or do you let a debt crisis happen?”
But that framing treats money creation as a last resort. Sovereign Govts create base money whenever they spend. Spending itself creates the money. Bonds and taxes follow to manage liquidity, interest rates, and inflation.
This is why the way the US is said to “service” its debt is often misunderstood. The US does not service its debt by raising or finding dollars in the way a household or business does. It services its debt by electronically crediting accounts in its own currency as obligations fall due.
The binding constraints are inflation and real resources, labour, materials, energy, and productive capacity, not revenue or the willingness of foreign holders to roll debt.
Presenting these issues as binary choices or funding problems misunderstands how the Govt expenditure system works. It shifts the debate away from how resources are allocated and whether the economy is functioning for people, and toward artificial financial constraints that then justify austerity.

RE: the CNN article – the point isn’t Trump as an individual. The level of visible corruption is unprecedented. It’s what the system permits. If the rules allow self-enrichment, people will take advantage of them.
When executive power is paired with weak institutional checks, we see the outcome in its more extreme form.
And the real risk right now isn’t the size of US debt. It’s that a system with weak checks is being paired with a narrative that justifies further shrinking and weakening of the state. Debt panic becomes cover. Public capacity gets cut. Oversight disappears. And the people with power and access walk away richer.
 
Rizzah said:
The binding constraints are inflation and real resources, labour, materials, energy, and productive capacity, not revenue or the willingness of foreign holders to roll debt.
Click to expand...
Great post. In regards to this part above.

If the state spends beyond its real limits, we don’t ‘run out of money’ we get inflation and asset bubbles.

If inflation is creaoing up under National (3.1% again?) are we reaching the peak of our labour and resource capacity? Have been pushing this peak the last 5 years of high inflation?

Do we have the capacity for public investment? It seems the last period we can’t grow our economy without inflation. Do we need to focus on productivity, efficiencies and maximising what we have before we worry about any new spending?
 

NZWarriors.com

Rizzah said:
Most fiscal commentary, like the articles from Fortune and CNN, is written from an orthodox macro framework. That framework focuses on debt-to-GDP ratios, interest costs, investor confidence, fiscal sustainability, and political risk. Those are legitimate economic considerations, and they’re the lens most economists and journalists are trained to use.
Where it falls short is in separating economic outcomes from how money is created and settled. Orthodox models focus on credit, borrowing, and balance sheet constraints, and largely ignore sovereign money creation as a routine operational fact. That gap is where much of the confusion creeps in.

One thing debt-to-GDP commentary often misses is that GDP isn’t fixed. It’s not an external constraint. GDP responds directly to policy choices.
Targeted public investment that lowers costs for working people and firms across healthcare, education, transport, energy, housing, and R&D expands productive capacity and raises economic activity. That improves debt-to-GDP outcomes by increasing GDP and lowering the ratio.

When those investments are avoided in the name of “fiscal discipline”, growth is weaker and debt ratios often worsen. Policies framed as responsible end up being self-defeating, and often destructive.
We’re seeing this play out here in NZ under the current coalition. Public investment has been cut back in the name of fiscal discipline. Growth has weakened, and public debt has increased.
The Govt’s response is to push for more cuts, despite the clear damage the policy has already caused.

Ray Dalio’s comment in the Fortune article shows the orthodox lens at work. He says, “Do you print money or do you let a debt crisis happen?”
But that framing treats money creation as a last resort. Sovereign Govts create base money whenever they spend. Spending itself creates the money. Bonds and taxes follow to manage liquidity, interest rates, and inflation.
This is why the way the US is said to “service” its debt is often misunderstood. The US does not service its debt by raising or finding dollars in the way a household or business does. It services its debt by electronically crediting accounts in its own currency as obligations fall due.
The binding constraints are inflation and real resources, labour, materials, energy, and productive capacity, not revenue or the willingness of foreign holders to roll debt.
Presenting these issues as binary choices or funding problems misunderstands how the Govt expenditure system works. It shifts the debate away from how resources are allocated and whether the economy is functioning for people, and toward artificial financial constraints that then justify austerity.

RE: the CNN article – the point isn’t Trump as an individual. The level of visible corruption is unprecedented. It’s what the system permits. If the rules allow self-enrichment, people will take advantage of them.
When executive power is paired with weak institutional checks, we see the outcome in its more extreme form.
And the real risk right now isn’t the size of US debt. It’s that a system with weak checks is being paired with a narrative that justifies further shrinking and weakening of the state. Debt panic becomes cover. Public capacity gets cut. Oversight disappears. And the people with power and access walk away richer.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the considered posts, and as mentioned in the previous post that it’s a topic I’m far from knowledgeable on. Would any of ol mate ai’s views on risk to America through its debt have any relevance in your opinion? The cnn article I was coming from an angle of the potential of world leaders to have concerns about dealing with America through its corruption and where that leads?
Key Risks of High U.S. Debt:
  • Higher Interest Rates: As interest payments on the debt rise, they can push up rates for mortgages, credit cards, and auto loans, decreasing personal disposable income.
  • Economic Stagnation/Reduced Investment: High borrowing can lead to a "crowding out" effect, where government debt consumption reduces capital available for private sector investment, slowing productivity growth.
  • Reduced Fiscal Flexibility: A higher percentage of the budget goes toward interest rather than infrastructure, education, or healthcare, reducing the government's ability to respond to future emergencies.
  • Inflationary Pressure: Excessive debt can lead to higher inflation or a weaker currency if the Federal Reserve is pressured to monetize the debt.
  • Default Risk: While considered unlikely, failing to raise the debt limit could lead to a default, resulting in a catastrophic financial crisis, market collapse, and loss of global trust in U.S. financial stability
 
wizard of Tauranga said:
Great post. In regards to this part above.

If the state spends beyond its real limits, we don’t ‘run out of money’ we get inflation and asset bubbles.

If inflation is creaoing up under National (3.1% again?) are we reaching the peak of our labour and resource capacity? Have been pushing this peak the last 5 years of high inflation?

Do we have the capacity for public investment? It seems the last period we can’t grow our economy without inflation. Do we need to focus on productivity, efficiencies and maximising what we have before we worry about any new spending?
Click to expand...

You’re right about the mechanism but not the diagnosis.
Yes, if the Govt spends beyond real capacity, we don’t “run out of money”. Pressure shows up as inflation, asset prices, or bottlenecks. That part is correct.
By capacity, I mean the economy’s ability to produce real goods and services, labour, materials, energy, infrastructure, and systems, much of which is built or constrained by public investment decisions.
When done well, expanding that capacity lowers costs and risk for private enterprise.

Where I’d push back is the idea that current inflation means NZ has hit economy-wide capacity limits, or that public investment is therefore off the table.
In a small, infrastructure-constrained economy like NZ, a lot of what gets treated as “market limits” are actually the result of long-term public underinvestment.

Recent NZ inflation hasn’t come from an economy running too hot. It’s come from a mix of supply shocks, housing constraints, energy costs, population changes, and policy choices that actively suppressed capacity, including reduced investment in local Govt that has driven up rates, licensing fees, and other administrative costs. Those costs don’t expand capacity. They get passed straight through to households and firms. That’s very different from excess demand.
In sectors like healthcare, construction, and infrastructure, the issue hasn’t been “too much demand”. It’s been underinvestment and stop-start funding, including hiring freezes and cancelled or delayed projects. Those choices reduce capacity first, then get mistaken for hard limits later. That reversal of cause and effect is the core mistake.

Public investment isn’t the opposite of productivity and efficiency. In NZ, it’s often the precondition for them.
If hospitals, transport, energy systems, housing supply, and skills pipelines are underbuilt, the private sector can’t expand without hitting bottlenecks. Inflation shows up when growth tries to resume. Cutting public investment in response doesn’t solve that. It locks the constraint in place.
This is why “focus on productivity before spending” is backwards. Productivity doesn’t arrive on its own. It comes from infrastructure that lowers real costs, trained labour, stable project pipelines, and systems that let firms plan and invest.
If those are missing, the economy switches between stagnation and inflation.

So yes, capacity matters. But the real question isn’t “can NZ afford to invest?” It’s whether investment expands capacity or shrinks it.
Targeted public investment that relieves real constraints is anti-inflationary over time. Repeated austerity is not. It just guarantees we hit the same walls again.
 
Rizzah said:
You’re right about the mechanism but not the diagnosis.
Yes, if the Govt spends beyond real capacity, we don’t “run out of money”. Pressure shows up as inflation, asset prices, or bottlenecks. That part is correct.
By capacity, I mean the economy’s ability to produce real goods and services, labour, materials, energy, infrastructure, and systems, much of which is built or constrained by public investment decisions.
When done well, expanding that capacity lowers costs and risk for private enterprise.

Where I’d push back is the idea that current inflation means NZ has hit economy-wide capacity limits, or that public investment is therefore off the table.
In a small, infrastructure-constrained economy like NZ, a lot of what gets treated as “market limits” are actually the result of long-term public underinvestment.

Recent NZ inflation hasn’t come from an economy running too hot. It’s come from a mix of supply shocks, housing constraints, energy costs, population changes, and policy choices that actively suppressed capacity, including reduced investment in local Govt that has driven up rates, licensing fees, and other administrative costs. That’s very different from excess demand.
In sectors like healthcare, construction, and infrastructure, the issue hasn’t been “too much demand”. It’s been underinvestment and stop-start funding, including hiring freezes and cancelled or delayed projects. Those choices reduce capacity first, then get mistaken for hard limits later. That reversal of cause and effect is the core mistake.

Public investment isn’t the opposite of productivity and efficiency. In NZ, it’s often the precondition for them.
If hospitals, transport, energy systems, housing supply, and skills pipelines are underbuilt, the private sector can’t expand without hitting bottlenecks. Inflation shows up when growth tries to resume. Cutting public investment in response doesn’t solve that. It locks the constraint in place.
This is why “focus on productivity before spending” is backwards. Productivity doesn’t arrive on its own. It comes from infrastructure that lowers real costs, trained labour, stable project pipelines, and systems that let firms plan and invest.
If those are missing, the economy switches between stagnation and inflation.

So yes, capacity matters. But the real question isn’t “can NZ afford to invest?” It’s whether investment expands capacity or shrinks it.
Targeted public investment that relieves real constraints is anti-inflationary over time. Repeated austerity is not. It just guarantees we hit the same walls again.
Click to expand...
Jeez I remember you having to post plenty explaining debt on the politics thread regarding the previous government ages ago. Some on here weren’t supportive, or at least spent in areas they didn’t agree with
 

NZWarriors.com

Rizzah said:
If hospitals, transport, energy systems, housing supply, and skills pipelines are underbuilt, the private sector can’t expand without hitting bottlenecks. Inflation shows up when growth tries to resume. Cutting public investment in response doesn’t solve that. It locks the constraint in place.
This is why “focus on productivity before spending” is backwards. Productivity doesn’t arrive on its own. It comes from infrastructure that lowers real costs, trained labour, stable project pipelines, and systems that let firms plan and invest.
If those are missing, the economy switches between stagnation and inflation.
Click to expand...
Agree with all of this and appears to be where NZ is stuck now. Stagnation and inflation.

Is it a chicken and egg situation though. Spending while at capacity cannot be actioned effectively as we’ve hit the limits to action it?

Aren’t low hanging fruit like getting more under employed into work, a focus on technology that can do more work with less, releasing land for housing, the RMA, open access to resource extraction, prioritise free trade deals, etc.
 
Noitall said:
Thanks for the considered posts, and as mentioned in the previous post that it’s a topic I’m far from knowledgeable on. Would any of ol mate ai’s views on risk to America through its debt have any relevance in your opinion? The cnn article I was coming from an angle of the potential of world leaders to have concerns about dealing with America through its corruption and where that leads?
Key Risks of High U.S. Debt:
  • Higher Interest Rates: As interest payments on the debt rise, they can push up rates for mortgages, credit cards, and auto loans, decreasing personal disposable income.
  • Economic Stagnation/Reduced Investment: High borrowing can lead to a "crowding out" effect, where government debt consumption reduces capital available for private sector investment, slowing productivity growth.
  • Reduced Fiscal Flexibility: A higher percentage of the budget goes toward interest rather than infrastructure, education, or healthcare, reducing the government's ability to respond to future emergencies.
  • Inflationary Pressure: Excessive debt can lead to higher inflation or a weaker currency if the Federal Reserve is pressured to monetize the debt.
  • Default Risk: While considered unlikely, failing to raise the debt limit could lead to a default, resulting in a catastrophic financial crisis, market collapse, and loss of global trust in U.S. financial stability
Click to expand...
Most of the risks you’ve listed are real, but they’re often misattributed to “high debt” rather than to policy and institutional choices.

Higher Interest Rates:
Higher rates aren’t caused by the Govt “needing to borrow”. They’re a policy choice made for inflation control. The US issues debt in its own currency within the Fed’s rate framework. Household impacts come from monetary policy decisions, not from debt levels themselves.
Interest rates are a blunt tool for managing inflation because they suppress demand broadly, rather than fixing the specific capacity constraints that caused the pressure in the first place.

Economic Stagnation/Reduced Investment:
For sovereign currency issuers, this is largely a myth. As the Bank of England has explicitly pointed out (link below), Govt spending creates income and savings first. There is no fixed pool of capital being competed over by the Govt. The crowding out story relies on the idea that lending is constrained by prior savings, which is not how modern banking systems work. Banks create loans first, and deposits and savings follow. What actually suppresses private investment are real bottlenecks, weak infrastructure, unstable demand, and policy uncertainty.
Underinvestment in public capacity crowds out private activity far more reliably than public spending does. This is consistent with central bank explanations of modern money creation, including from the RBNZ, which show that Govt spending does not mechanically compete with a fixed stock of private savings.

Fiscal flexibility, inflation, and default!
The US isn’t financially constrained by interest costs. It’s politically constrained. Inflation risk is real, but it’s about capacity, not debt levels. Any US default would be political, via the debt ceiling or a refusal to honour Treasuries, not financial. It would require a total breakdown in governance, which is not an operational risk at this stage. The US has strong institutional backstops that would intervene well before economic breakdown.

Which gets to your point about corruption and trust.
The real risk to the US isn’t the size of its debt. It’s institutional. When weak checks, politicised fiscal rules, and visible self-enrichment coexist, other countries don’t worry about whether the US can pay. They worry about predictability and rule stability. Those are political risks, not monetary ones. Treating them as household-style debt problems leads to austerity and state retreat, which weakens public investment in real productive capacity, hollows out key industries, undermines living standards, and erodes economic resilience. That economic resilience is ultimately what underpins confidence in the USD.

 
Also, it's good in theory assuming no fraud or incompetence with that money - which is a big assumption particularly as we see for the US. Its fine to 'borrow' if it's actually productive borrowing.
 

NZWarriors.com

Inruin said:
Also, it's good in theory assuming no fraud or incompetence with that money - which is a big assumption particularly as we see for the US. Its fine to 'borrow' if it's actually productive borrowing.
Click to expand...
It’s not a theory. Money creation is the default way sovereign currency-issuing Govts spend. The real question is not whether the money exists, but whether the spending expands real capacity or wastes it.
 
Rizzah said:
It’s not a theory. Money creation is the default way sovereign currency-issuing Govts spend. The real question is not whether the money exists, but whether the spending expands real capacity or wastes it.
Click to expand...
Whatever you want to label it as the real question is the same. As you have said.
 
www.forbes.com

With The U.S. Debt A Staggering $38 Trillion Dollars, Who Exactly Do We Owe?

As we enter 2026, there is no better time to review our finances. With the national debt surpassing $38 trillion, here are the three countries we owe the most.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com

Rizzah said:
Most of the risks you’ve listed are real, but they’re often misattributed to “high debt” rather than to policy and institutional choices
Click to expand...
With 68-75% of debt held domestically and 25-32% foreign owned, is there a chance that the risk gets to high at some point for all involved? And also your post about creating money, with debts at those levels of America currently with money creation as a contributing factor, is it being used wisely in your view or wasted?
 

NZWarriors.com

Rizzah said:
Most of the risks you’ve listed are real, but they’re often misattributed to “high debt” rather than to policy and institutional choices.

Higher Interest Rates:
Higher rates aren’t caused by the Govt “needing to borrow”. They’re a policy choice made for inflation control. The US issues debt in its own currency within the Fed’s rate framework. Household impacts come from monetary policy decisions, not from debt levels themselves.
Interest rates are a blunt tool for managing inflation because they suppress demand broadly, rather than fixing the specific capacity constraints that caused the pressure in the first place.

Economic Stagnation/Reduced Investment:
For sovereign currency issuers, this is largely a myth. As the Bank of England has explicitly pointed out (link below), Govt spending creates income and savings first. There is no fixed pool of capital being competed over by the Govt. The crowding out story relies on the idea that lending is constrained by prior savings, which is not how modern banking systems work. Banks create loans first, and deposits and savings follow. What actually suppresses private investment are real bottlenecks, weak infrastructure, unstable demand, and policy uncertainty.
Underinvestment in public capacity crowds out private activity far more reliably than public spending does. This is consistent with central bank explanations of modern money creation, including from the RBNZ, which show that Govt spending does not mechanically compete with a fixed stock of private savings.

Fiscal flexibility, inflation, and default!
The US isn’t financially constrained by interest costs. It’s politically constrained. Inflation risk is real, but it’s about capacity, not debt levels. Any US default would be political, via the debt ceiling or a refusal to honour Treasuries, not financial. It would require a total breakdown in governance, which is not an operational risk at this stage. The US has strong institutional backstops that would intervene well before economic breakdown.

Which gets to your point about corruption and trust.
The real risk to the US isn’t the size of its debt. It’s institutional. When weak checks, politicised fiscal rules, and visible self-enrichment coexist, other countries don’t worry about whether the US can pay. They worry about predictability and rule stability. Those are political risks, not monetary ones. Treating them as household-style debt problems leads to austerity and state retreat, which weakens public investment in real productive capacity, hollows out key industries, undermines living standards, and erodes economic resilience. That economic resilience is ultimately what underpins confidence in the USD.

Click to expand...
Isn’t the assumption that govt spending alone controls the economy? Isn’t govt spending about a third of GDP either more potential for gains in private?

If private spending and investment is booming or busting, shouldn’t the govt run counter to that?

And here’s the ideological side, shouldn’t the aim be to prioritise private growth, which expands capacity faster (higher efficiency and productivity gains) and then that allows more capacity for the govt to invest?

Eg grow the economy and use that increased capacity (more highly skilled workers, better equipment and technology, less people doing more) to leverage the public sector ( more worker capacity, skills, equipment, etc)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom