Molson Hart

I do get it. I’m making a technical point which does not change the general correctness of your statement, but I’m nonetheless still right. Borrow $97, promise to pay $100. Buy back for $50. Keep $47. Provides no need for additional financing, it works.

No, you still don't get it. If you don't need additional financing your bonds would NOT be at 20%.

I do get it and now you’re making me mad. I keep telling you that under the following conditions it is mathematically profitable and you keep ignoring my statement cite different conditions. Markets are volatile and misappraise as you know better than I.

"Under the following conditions", bonds would not be at 20%. You need to try to think before making statements in finance. Study some finance.

Out of respect for you and your work I will try to explain one last time. Also, I would appreciate it if you didn’t go ad hominem on me while knowing NOTHInG about what I have studied or who I am. 1. Country A needs money so they decide to sell $100 10y bonds at $97

You’re making a fool of yourself. First rule, don’t argue with someone clearly smarter than you. Second rule, read first rule again and again. For the respect for your studies, here’s a quizz for you: if you borrow 100$, then decide to not pay it back, is that 100$ profit?

You're a hypocrite Answer to your question: depends on how you define profit.

Understanding profit will probably take few tweets for you to get it am afraid. But the definition is clear and not debatable: creating more value than you consume during the process. Not to confuse with profiteering/scamming/ Ponzi schemes.