Trump

Anything not relating to the X-Universe games (general tech talk, other games...) belongs here. Please read the rules before posting.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

Mightysword
Posts: 2225
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 06:11
x3tc

Re: Trump

Post by Mightysword » Thu, 6. Dec 18, 17:31

Bishop149 wrote:
Thu, 6. Dec 18, 12:03
Debt is a part of business sure, and for the ultra rich is often used to a frankly ridiculous degree. It is also basically what leveraging is that I was discussing earlier. But being a "good businessmen" means you can successfully manage it, balance your books, Trump did not he was staggeringly reckless and it crippled him. It really is quite simple.
And ... are Trump cripple now financially wise?
Mightysword wrote:
Thu, 6. Dec 18, 04:04
That would be like saying because Tesla was on the verse of bankruptcy, everything Elon Musk had done in his life are just mere precursors to this one failure. :roll:
Well yes . . . why is this so hard for you to grasp? You're happy to judge someone over the short term with no regard for the eventual consequences?
I could become rich overnight, I could go out a mortgage every asset I own to the hilt, get 10 credit cards and max them out. . . . I could live the high life for a few years and then be completely screwed when it all came home to roost. Would you only look at those couple of years and say "Wow, that Bishop sure knows how to live!"
Don't you see the irony in what you're trying to say? You're accusing me of being happy to judge someone over short term, yet it IS you that are guilty of that. You are focusing in just ONE specific time frame in the late 80' and early 90' that Trump was dancing around bankruptcy to indite judgement on him. It is ME who judging him over the long term, from the beginning when he worked in his father real estate company at 22, to when he took charge of it and found Trump organization 3 years later, to now when he's 72 years old sitting of a large business empire with a diverse porfollio. There are up and down, but again, if you want to convince people he's not a successful then you are being outright dishonest, much in the way when Warren claimed GE pay -zero- tax.

Oh, and that hyperbolic example you just used, don't bother. I know a lot of people live like that, in fact a lot of American live like that, including many who riches and famous. They tend to end up actually bankruptcing and being on the street, they don't end up like Trump. ;)

Brief aside, seeing as you keep bringing up Elon Musk he is quite a good parallel. IMO I think its likely he will also eventually fail as well (not as hard as Trump though). His businesses are not sustainable, he's doing some very cool stuff but his desire for this kudos seems to frequently override good business sense.
So you seems to think "good business" is defined as being never suffering set back and failure. Well, I think most people will disagree with you, especially Trump. After all he said: Success comes from failure, not from memorizing the right answers.
Life just being different for the rich is a plain fact.
Oh I know. I'm not rich now, but I used to be. 3 generations ago we were part of the aristocrat (my great grand parents), 2 generation ago we we part of the olingard (my grand parents), the previous generation we were part of economical elite (my mothers). It's my generation (aka me) that decided to give up that to come to the US and restart from zero (aka becoming poor). Missed that life? No. But neither I hold contempt about it, I have seen the other side of that life. The bigger the ship, the stronger the wave, it's not just about money. ;)

See, it's a mentality thing. It's not just my life, but my culture teach us to never hold contempt to the people above us, but to look at those people and propel ourselves to their place. There is a reason for someone who came to the US in 2003 empty hand to live in a slump, going to the worst school in the district, to get a BS 6 years later, buy a house in 2009, receive the first MS 3 years later, a second MS 2 years later, and finally went above the nation median income a year ago. All of that was achieved with no special help, and without a home-field advantage. I'll give you a hint, that was achieved by not complaining about the problems, but by gritting the teeth to become part of what you so call "problems". :sceptic:
As for it not being your business, well it is, in reality it's your money they're spending they didn't and couldn't "earn" it. But hey, your prerogative.
My tax money is being used to take care of some drunkards who never take charge of their life. My tax money is being used to buy weapons to bomb innocent in another country. My tax money are being used to pay salary to a bunch of politician who lying through their teeth everyday. So yes, you can be quite sure that bailing out business is the the least ineffective usage of tax money.
This tells me there is no reason trying to explain it to you, you have already looked up the data of people far more qualified than I am to explain this and rejected it for your own reasons.
And that reason being they have been historically proven to be incorrect, repeatly, and have not even ONE good example to their grace. So if these people who are more qualified than you, who probably have a better data set to work with then you and still can't do their job .... give me one reason why me or anyone should trust your model/calculation aside from just agreeing with the narrative in principle? ;)
Both can make me angry, both are examples of literally one rule for the rich and another for the rest of us. And tax is merely one example.
And be angry away, that is your right. Doesn't change the fact that's how life work though, or the life as we know it. :P
Trump is 3) his assessment of his own competence is at odds with reality.
It's not a hard choice.
He's sitting on a a business empire that ranging from 5-10bil depending on who you trust. That is your reality.
This is, in a nutshell, often why economic crashes happen.
Just like life. If you are able to come up with an economic theory that can make the world economy stay healthy eternally, not only I believe you should be paid 10 digits salary, I believe you should be enshrined and elevated to godhood. That is why I said why your argument isn't really about right or wrong, it just lack substance mixing with a bit of non-story. Most of your accusation about Trump about this is akin to accusing the sky being blue, and you just happens to hate the color blue. :wink:

User avatar
BugMeister
Posts: 3904
Joined: Thu, 15. Jul 04, 04:41
x4

Re: Trump

Post by BugMeister » Thu, 6. Dec 18, 22:13

- that's complete rubbish, and you know it..
- the whole universe is running in BETA mode - we're working on it.. beep..!! :D :thumb_up:

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 1911
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Re: Trump

Post by Morkonan » Thu, 6. Dec 18, 22:34

Mightysword wrote:
Thu, 6. Dec 18, 17:31
...He's sitting on a a business empire that ranging from 5-10bil depending on who you trust. That is your reality...
This actually doesn't mean very much... You can not easily infer he's a business genius or a business moron just from his bank balance. All you can do is say "He has a lot of money." That would be true. But, unless you knew more, you couldn't say he has a lot of money because he, himself, made great business deals nor could you deny that aliens swooped down from the sky and gave it to him. :)

I find it kind of funny that there's an argument going on about how someone got rich. If Trump had started out poor, then one could reasonably say he either got really lucky or he worked really hard or both. (Most likely, it'd be both.) At the very least, we can say he started out with many more tools available to him that could help him make more money. That's about it. Personally, I think people more often threw money at him rather than him "making" it - He sold his "brand," not his brilliant ideas or products. That's a viable route to wealth and all we have to do is look at the Kardashians for proof.

So, what's the route to wealth like Trump's? How did he amass a fortune? (Assuming he has a fortune that was amassed.) Is it hard work? No. Bunches of people work hard in a variety of job roles and don't have the ability to amass that wealth. Was it providence? Unless he literally won a random lottery, probably not. Was it purposeful timing? No. If it was, everyone who had similar abilities would have amassed such a fortune, too. (Note: SOME people did, but to claim they may have had prescience isn't a legitimate argument. They could have, but it wasn't required. Only the act, itself, was required to take advantage of the circumstances of the day.)

We've had poor Presidents and Rich Presidents. Lately, more of them are rich than not because of the way our election finance laws work and how much money it takes to run a successful Presidential campaign. The last off-the-cuff estimate I saw to run a good, if not successful, US Presidential campaign was 100 million USD. And.. that's the problem these days - It's a hard limit on who can actually run for President. It doesn't necessarily matter if they're a good choice or not. The first qualifier is whether or not they can get enough money to run for President. And, it doesn't matter where that money comes from.

Anyway... So, Trump is rich. I don't care because his bank balance doesn't say anything about him or his personal qualities. Unfortunately, a lot of people make the incorrect assumption that it does. They think that because he has a desirable bank balance that must mean he has some desirable qualities as a person. People have been making that mistake for a very long time.

User avatar
esd
Moderator (English)
Moderator (English)
Posts: 11546
Joined: Tue, 2. Sep 03, 05:57
x3tc

Re: Trump

Post by esd » Fri, 7. Dec 18, 02:11

BugMeister wrote:
Thu, 6. Dec 18, 22:13
- that's complete rubbish, and you know it..
I'm sure if they "knew that" they'd not have said what they said. Either way, that's not a reasonable way to conduct yourself on this forum. In fact a few of you are getting close to having this thread locked now. Sort it out so we don't have to.
esd's Guides: X² Loops - X³ MORTs

Mightysword
Posts: 2225
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 06:11
x3tc

Re: Trump

Post by Mightysword » Fri, 7. Dec 18, 02:56

Morkonan wrote:
Thu, 6. Dec 18, 22:34
Mightysword wrote:
Thu, 6. Dec 18, 17:31
...He's sitting on a a business empire that ranging from 5-10bil depending on who you trust. That is your reality...
This actually doesn't mean very much... You can not easily infer he's a business genius or a business moron just from his bank balance. All you can do is say "He has a lot of money." That would be true. But, unless you knew more, you couldn't say he has a lot of money because he, himself, made great business deals nor could you deny that aliens swooped down from the sky and gave it to him. :)
My dude, you are absolutely right! And I wholeheartly agree! :D

Which is the reason why my last 3 long posts were trying to explain exactly that. (in case you didn't notice) ;)

See here's the thing, do I believe Trump is the best businessman in the world like Trump loves to brag about himself? Of course not. But if his show boasting and overstating his worth is the reason why people accusing him of lie and dishonesty then by the same token, the people who are adamant that Trump's fortune had all came from his inheritance and he could have just sit on his arse for the last 50 and would still be where he is now are guilty of the very same faults they accuse Trump of.

Color code due to long running sentence. :P

I think people tend to think by presenting their argument in the absolute extreme it will help reinforcing their points. But for me, it just make the argument weaker by making it losing creditably. Maybe that how it works for others, but this is how it works for me. You probably have noticed, my main source of "fun" in these posts and on the forum as a whole, whether it about Trump or other threads, is poking at things that were presented without a context. :)

User avatar
Masterbagger
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue, 14. Oct 14, 00:49
x3ap

Re: Trump

Post by Masterbagger » Fri, 7. Dec 18, 03:38

Mightysword wrote:
Fri, 7. Dec 18, 02:56

I think people tend to think by presenting their argument in the absolute extreme it will help reinforcing their points. But for me, it just make the argument weaker by making it losing creditably. Maybe that how it works for others, but this is how it works for me. You probably have noticed, my main source of "fun" in these posts and on the forum as a whole, whether it about Trump or other threads, is poking at things that were presented without a context. :)
I don't think it's to make a point. I think some people just want to be mad at President Trump. They want to see constant 100% negative coverage about everything he is involved in. They want him to fail no matter what it costs. They don't want to hear that he was right about anything or did anything good. They definitely don't want to hear the actual reasons people voted for him. You can't pierce those feelings with reason.
Who made that man a gunner?

Mightysword
Posts: 2225
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 06:11
x3tc

Re: Trump

Post by Mightysword » Fri, 7. Dec 18, 04:06

Masterbagger wrote:
Fri, 7. Dec 18, 03:38
I don't think it's to make a point. I think some people just want to be mad at President Trump. They want to see constant 100% negative coverage about everything he is involved in. They want him to fail no matter what it costs. They don't want to hear that he was right about anything or did anything good.
Note that I'm not one to pick side, and in this argument I don't consider one is better then the others. The only reason I often appears to be coming from the Trump side simply due to the fact there are already plenty of voices on the other side. So I'm just doing my part as a counter weight to that, to provide context and reason so it isn't just a one sided bandwagon shows that's devoid of reasons. Like I often said, both side often exhibit the same faults. But while each side is extremely efficient at picking those faults from the other side, that efficiency is only matched but their own inability of recognizing their own faults.

I'm not a fan of Trump, and I'm not wishing for a Trump 2.0 in 2020.

But, here is one thing we can agree on:
They definitely don't want to hear the actual reasons people voted for him. You can't pierce those feelings with reason.
And that's the gist of the problem. Love him or hate him, Trump came to power for "reasons". Reasons that people don't want to admit or acknowledge. We don't even have to talk about whether Trump can actually solve any issues in the end, but the fact of the matter is he was elected because people believe he's about the only one who acknowledge to fix the problem, and so far, it appears he's trying. Again no one have a clue how things gonna turn out yet, but at the very least his base can see that he's trying, and that's already more than what can be said for most others who don't even want to acknowledge the problem. I don't want Trump in office, I want someone who are capable of fixing what Trump said he wants to fix, but in a more controllable and measured manner. But until said person arise, many will see Trump as their only option, and it's not hard to understand them. :sceptic:

It's rare for me to find something I can agree on CNN, but here is one:

Why Bruce Springsteen thinks Donald Trump is going to win in 2020

If you don't know who Bruce Springsteen is, that tittle can be misleading to you, for both sides of the fence. He's not one of Trump's cheer leader, in fact he probably hate Trump more than most of you here do, the guy performed at Obama's inauguration if that gives you an idea. But here he is, telling people Trump's 2020 prospect is almost assured. I guess the reason I like the article because here I find someone who think similarly to me. The article echo a lot of the same points I had repeatedly brought up in the last 2 years.

I know many of people here carry a certain impression about me for how often I came out on Trump defense, so here is an alternative example for you. You don't have to be a Trump's supporter to acknowledge other things about him, and the more you refuse to do so, the less chance you will have going up against him. :wink:

User avatar
Masterbagger
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue, 14. Oct 14, 00:49
x3ap

Re: Trump

Post by Masterbagger » Fri, 7. Dec 18, 05:44

Mightysword wrote:
Fri, 7. Dec 18, 04:06
Masterbagger wrote:
Fri, 7. Dec 18, 03:38
I don't think it's to make a point. I think some people just want to be mad at President Trump. They want to see constant 100% negative coverage about everything he is involved in. They want him to fail no matter what it costs. They don't want to hear that he was right about anything or did anything good.
Note that I'm not one to pick side, and in this argument I don't consider one is better then the others. The only reason I often appears to be coming from the Trump side simply due to the fact there are already plenty of voices on the other side. So I'm just doing my part as a counter weight to that, to provide context and reason so it isn't just a one sided bandwagon shows that's devoid of reasons. Like I often said, both side often exhibit the same faults. But while each side is extremely efficient at picking those faults from the other side, that efficiency is only matched but their own inability of recognizing their own faults.

I'm not a fan of Trump, and I'm not wishing for a Trump 2.0 in 2020.

But, here is one thing we can agree on:
They definitely don't want to hear the actual reasons people voted for him. You can't pierce those feelings with reason.
And that's the gist of the problem. Love him or hate him, Trump came to power for "reasons". Reasons that people don't want to admit or acknowledge. We don't even have to talk about whether Trump can actually solve any issues in the end, but the fact of the matter is he was elected because people believe he's about the only one who acknowledge to fix the problem, and so far, it appears he's trying. Like I said, no one have a clue how things gonna turn out yet, but at the very least his base can see that he's trying, and that's already more than what can be said for most others who don't even want to acknowledge the problem. I don't want Trump in office, I want someone who are capable of fixing what Trump said he wants to fix, but in a more controllable and measured manner. But until said person arise, many will see Trump as their only option, and it's not hard to understand them. :sceptic:

It's rare for me to find something I can agree on CNN, but here is one:

Why Bruce Springsteen thinks Donald Trump is going to win in 2020

If you don't know who Bruce Springsteen is, that tittle can be misleading to you, for both sides of the fence. He's not one of Trump's cheer leader, in fact he probably hate Trump more than most of you here do, the guy performed at Obama's inauguration if that gives you an idea. But here he is, telling people Trump's 2020 prospect is almost assured. I guess the reason I like the article because here I find someone who think similarly to me. The article echo a lot of the same points I had repeatedly brought up in the last 2 years.

I know many of people here carry a certain impression about me for how often I came out on Trump defense, so here is an alternative example for you. You don't have to be a Trump's supporter to acknowledge other things about him, and the more you refuse to do so, the less chance you will have going up against him. :wink:
Trump does not perfectly embody what I want out of a president either. I voted for him mainly because the balance of SCOTUS was at stake. He delivered in this area in a way that no one could have done better. He did right by me. I will likely vote for him again because to me the alternative is so much worse. I can't support the left here in America. I don't like what they have become. I don't like identity politics. I don't like intolerance of dissent. I don't like being told thinking different from their ideas is racist or sexist or any other thing. Those people are hostile to freedom of thought and freedom to disagree. I get that you're an independent. What I see is that you might not have chosen a side but to the left here you have and it is not theirs. The only reason all of the full force of that ugliness they are displaying toward me isn't falling on you is because I'm in the way.
Who made that man a gunner?

Bishop149
Posts: 1502
Joined: Fri, 9. Apr 04, 21:19
x3

Re: Trump

Post by Bishop149 » Fri, 7. Dec 18, 16:14

So you seems to think "good business" is defined as being never suffering set back and failure. Well, I think most people will disagree with you, especially Trump. After all he said: Success comes from failure, not from memorizing the right answers.
I'd say that never suffering a failure that bankrupts you (especially personally, I mean damn!) is a pretty good metric, yep.
Also more generally, I'd expect good businessmen to have more successes that failures, under the most generous possible interpretation Mr Trump is sitting around the 50:50 mark. A coin flip.
Mightysword wrote:
Thu, 6. Dec 18, 17:31
Don't you see the irony in what you're trying to say? You're accusing me of being happy to judge someone over short term, yet it IS you that are guilty of that. You are focusing in just ONE specific time frame in the late 80' and early 90' that Trump was dancing around bankruptcy to indite judgement on him.
[snip]
He's sitting on a a business empire that ranging from 5-10bil depending on who you trust. That is your reality.
I've already tried to explain why it is that Trump still has money after he went functionally bankrupt, but you seem to be wilfully ignoring it.
I'll say it once more:
1) He was given VERY special dispensation by nearly everybody.
2) He had his hands held / tied on his way back to solvency, his power over his money was essentially zero, name only. His creditors managed them for him to minimise their own losses.
He even had limits placed upon his the spending of his PERSONAL wealth, which is frankly incredible.
Neither of these things are anything to to with Trump, the fact he is not broke today is entirely due to the grace and favour of others. So no I give him no credit for that later period either.

Trump SHOULD be living in the gutter (at least relatively) if you or I had made the same financial decisions he did then we certainly would be.
But as you say, the sky is blue and the rules for Trump are not the same as for us.
It also worth stating that he is exceptional even by the standards of rich people, the reason he was given such a dispensation was due to the EXTREME nature of his failure. No one expected that a single man could lose a billion dollars, it had never happened before and the system was unprepared for it . . . . rather than spread the pain, they dealt with it as best they could by bailing him out. The upshot being that he was essentially rewarded for being so "good" at screwing up.
So yeah, great presidential material. :roll:
My tax money is being used to take care of some drunkards who never take charge of their life. My tax money is being used to buy weapons to bomb innocent in another country. My tax money are being used to pay salary to a bunch of politician who lying through their teeth everyday. So yes, you can be quite sure that bailing out business is the the least ineffective usage of tax money.
Oh dear . . . . that wasn't what I was inferring. You think the Trumps of this world only take money from you in the form of taxes!? Bless!
And that reason being they have been historically proven to be incorrect, repeatly, and have not even ONE good example to their grace. So if these people who are more qualified than you, who probably have a better data set to work with then you and still can't do their job .... give me one reason why me or anyone should trust your model/calculation aside from just agreeing with the narrative in principle? ;)
Cool, just go and work it out for yourself then, whats stopping you?
Just like life. If you are able to come up with an economic theory that can make the world economy stay healthy eternally, not only I believe you should be paid 10 digits salary, I believe you should be enshrined and elevated to godhood. That is why I said why your argument isn't really about right or wrong, it just lack substance mixing with a bit of non-story. Most of your accusation about Trump about this is akin to accusing the sky being blue, and you just happens to hate the color blue. :wink:
Ha I probably could have a good stab at it, the fundamental problem is not especially complicated. Solving it however is, mostly because the 1% people controlling 99% of the power and money will obviously never act to remove those things from themselves. The assessment you make in your final two sentences is 100% correct, the worlds financial systems are corrupt, murderous and staggeringly inequitable, amounting to nothing more than the systematic exploitation of the vast majority of humanity. These are things I can not in good conscience accept or support and most of my arguments are driven by my sheer surprise that others such as yourself can.
Last edited by Bishop149 on Fri, 7. Dec 18, 17:19, edited 2 times in total.
"Shoot for the Moon. If you miss, you'll end up co-orbiting the Sun alongside Earth, living out your days alone in the void within sight of the lush, welcoming home you left behind." - XKCD

User avatar
BugMeister
Posts: 3904
Joined: Thu, 15. Jul 04, 04:41
x4

Re: Trump

Post by BugMeister » Fri, 7. Dec 18, 16:16

Keith Olbermann says it best:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_eBeZXXZqY

Drumpf manipulates you - and you fall for it..
- the whole universe is running in BETA mode - we're working on it.. beep..!! :D :thumb_up:

Bishop149
Posts: 1502
Joined: Fri, 9. Apr 04, 21:19
x3

Re: Trump

Post by Bishop149 » Fri, 7. Dec 18, 16:18

Behold, a brave woman.
I mean shes legal now, but I'm sure the Trumpsters will find plenty of other ways to come for her.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/us/t ... rkers.html

It a non-story though, I mean OF COURSE it's people like Trump who are the primary beneficiaries of illegal labour.
Nor is it news that Trump is a massive hypocrite, or a liar.
As Mightysword already put it yet more evidence that the sky is blue.
"Shoot for the Moon. If you miss, you'll end up co-orbiting the Sun alongside Earth, living out your days alone in the void within sight of the lush, welcoming home you left behind." - XKCD

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 1911
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Re: Trump

Post by Morkonan » Fri, 7. Dec 18, 19:23

Mightysword wrote:
Fri, 7. Dec 18, 02:56
My dude..
Lolz. I wonder if, before you came to the US and dived into 'Murican culture, if you would have ever imagined typing "My dude" in a reply to someone on teh interwebz. :) Thank you, brother 'Murican. :D
I think people tend to think by presenting their argument in the absolute extreme it will help reinforcing their points. But for me, it just make the argument weaker by making it losing creditably. Maybe that how it works for others, but this is how it works for me. You probably have noticed, my main source of "fun" in these posts and on the forum as a whole, whether it about Trump or other threads, is poking at things that were presented without a context. :)
Some "extreme" posts are, like many of mine, tests. In order to test something, the best choice is often to push it to "extremes." Put it in the most extreme situation possible and see if it still maintains whatever it is you're testing it for or what its limits may be.

BUT, then there are the "baby eater" sorts of extremes, where people extrapolate in a favored direction from a small point of fact. Those aren't legitimate "tests." Instead, they're attempts to sway opinion, not test of an opinion or fact to see if anyone has a different interpretation of it and whether or not there is a legitimate counter-argument that should be examined.

People tend to prop up their heroes and condemn their villains, both to extremes. It's normal human behavior. But, this behavior gets magnified and encouraged when people develop their opinions in a fishbowl or echo-chamber. They're opinions that wouldn't withstand close scrutiny in other settings, but get carried there anyway and thrust into the spotlight as "fact." And, when they're quickly dismantled for the hype they are? It's not what was presented that was wrong in the opinion of the presenter. Instead, they assume everyone else is biased against their extreme statement because, after all, whenever it is put forth in the environment in which it was hatched it survives nicely...

If someone over in an MSNBC forum screams out "Trump eats babies" there will be few naysayers. But, if they do it in some Fox News forum, they'd be insta-banned. Which forum would they feel more comfortable in if they hold to that opinion? What forum/place/setting/group of people would make them feel welcome and support their opinion? Few people who participate in such discussions enjoy being shown that they're wrong.
Masterbagger wrote:
Fri, 7. Dec 18, 03:38
I don't think it's to make a point. I think some people just want to be mad at President Trump. They want to see constant 100% negative coverage about everything he is involved in. They want him to fail no matter what it costs. They don't want to hear that he was right about anything or did anything good. They definitely don't want to hear the actual reasons people voted for him. You can't pierce those feelings with reason.
You can, but you must allow the person a way to regain their self-esteem. Further, if you actually "care", you'll treat them like a beloved friend and be supportive even if they're a traditional "enemy." You don't win hearts and minds with hand-grenades and if you want to have a friendly discussion, you must be... friendly. :) It also helps if one truly cares about what other people think more than one cares about attempting to influence that thought.

Like I wrote above, people prop up their heroes and condemn their villains. The truth is often somewhere in the middle. Well, sometimes it isn't in the middle, but those are truly rare events. The number of true sociopaths or extreme altruists is much less than common opinion would seem to insist.

User avatar
BugMeister
Posts: 3904
Joined: Thu, 15. Jul 04, 04:41
x4

Re: Trump

Post by BugMeister » Fri, 7. Dec 18, 20:35

The cult of Trump:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJ6OHMpXNfk

Drumpf is definitely a cult.. :roll:
- the whole universe is running in BETA mode - we're working on it.. beep..!! :D :thumb_up:

Mightysword
Posts: 2225
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 06:11
x3tc

Re: Trump

Post by Mightysword » Fri, 7. Dec 18, 22:37

Bishop149 wrote:
Fri, 7. Dec 18, 16:14
Also more generally, I'd expect good businessmen to have more successes that failures, under the most generous possible interpretation Mr Trump is sitting around the 50:50 mark. A coin flip.
And like I said, that's just not an honest assessment, an 8 years period to a 50 years career is a 50:50? But oh well, I'll take it. At least you moved on from Trump being a completely imbecell who can not doing anything to a 50:50. I guess my last few posts managed to accomplish something. :P
I've already tried to explain why it is that Trump still has money after he went functionally bankrupt, but you seem to be wilfully ignoring it.
I'll say it once more:
1) He was given VERY special dispensation by nearly everybody.
2) He had his hands held / tied on his way back to solvency, his power over his money was essentially zero, name only. His creditors managed them for him to minimise their own losses.
He even had limits placed upon his the spending of his PERSONAL wealth, which is frankly incredible.
Neither of these things are anything to to with Trump, the fact he is not broke today is entirely due to the grace and favour of others. So no I give him no credit for that later period either.
I'm not ignoring them, I'm diminishing them because of the narrative you were pushing are giving the wrong impression.
- The Trump's bailout package was negotiated with his debtors (a.k.a the banks), it was not a government bailout similar to the like we saw in the last depression that were given to GM motor and Morgan, which come out of the tax's payer dollar. Unless you have a personal skate, I don't see why you would be grumbling?
- Yes, Trump was given that because he was too big to fall, and I see simply this as shared liabilities between business partners. In the end, after a few years everyone involved ended up better than they would have if Trump was simply let go under. I don't know about you, that's the definition of good business decision. And if you think this is only exclusive to people like Trump, think again:

These day if you start defaulting on your payment in my area, the bank will foreclosure your house faster than you can blink because the market is so hot right now, and supply can't meet demand. But back in the last depression, there were so many foreclosing properties that the banks didn't know what to do with them. I personally know people in my area that were regularly behind 3, 6, and some case even 10 payments and were still allowed to keep their properties. It's certainly not the banks were feeling generous, but they just face with two choices:

+ Foreclosure the house, end up with with a greatly depreciated properties on a market that has no buyer, and thus can only be sold at a fraction of the original value (to me :D), while remain liable to tax and maintenance cost. Or ...
+ Forgive months or even a year of payment and/or restructuring the term in the hope that they will still be able to recoup most of the original profit in the long run.

- Here is your daily dose of context, yes the crisis Trump faced was part of his own doing (mainly the Plaza Hotel and the The Taj Mahah casino), but also in part of the situation. After the 1980 growth, things was slowing down again approaching the 90'. Do you know that on most account, Bush was a good president, yet he couldn't win a second term? It's because there was sight the US was sliding back into depression at that time.
- Trump got helped yes, but he also did a lot of things during this time to turn his own fortune around. This including raising cash by selling his other derivative business as well as landing other deals. I mentioned Trump managed to ink the Bank of Manhattan Trust building for peanuts, and the reason is (because context is king) the deal to sell it to Filipino President Ferdinand Marcos fell through the last minutes, and the owner got panic. That building (aka the Trump Building) are subsequently prized at 260mil in 2006 and 560mil as of today.
- By 1995, things had turned around, and it's suffice to say every parties involved were better off than they would have if they just let Trump go under in 1990. So why is it not a good business decision?
Trump SHOULD be living in the gutter (at least relatively) if you or I had made the same financial decisions he did then we certainly would be.
But as you say, the sky is blue and the rules for Trump are not the same as for us.
It also worth stating that he is exceptional even by the standards of rich people, the reason he was given such a dispensation was due to the EXTREME nature of his failure. No one expected that a single man could lose a billion dollars, it had never happened before and the system was unprepared for it . . . . rather than spread the pain, they dealt with it as best they could by bailing him out. The upshot being that he was essentially rewarded for being so "good" at screwing up.
See, and here is exactly what I meant by a sentimental filled statement. I read that and I only see grudge and misguided assumption, I don't see reason. It's like you're seeking justice simply based on psychology satisfaction rather than actual problem solving. Cutting off your nose to spite your face is not a sensible things, and lucky for us most people at the top of the economy don't do that. The reason I dismiss your points is because:

+ At best, you're making them as an ill-informed citizen, blissfully unware of the larger context.
+ At worst, you're willingly sideline important context and logic, cherry picking details and numbers to push the narrative that you want. In short, you're making a point like most politicians do.
+ At no point that I see you're making a point as a objective and reasonable economist, or even attempt to.

I'll give you another example similar to the one Warren claimed GE paid -zero- tax. This one is very recent, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez made another splash this week with this claim: “$21 TRILLION of Pentagon financial transactions ‘could not be traced, documented, or explained.’ $21T in Pentagon accounting errors. Medicare for All costs ~$32T. That means 66% of Medicare for All could have been funded already by the Pentagon. And that’s before our premiums" .

Now, if you already have a bias about Pentagon spending, which most of us do (including me), that message certainly play up your heartstrings because it has a grain of truth in it. If you are a hardcore socialist and voted for her, that tweet would certainly give you great satisfaction. But, anyone with a basic knowledge of economy, and willing to spend a little of their time in looking up some facts instead of just blindly following convenience narrative then ... well, let's just say if this person gets her wish of serving in the Budget committee in the house, then may God help us all. I have no love for the wastfulness of military spending, I have all the desire to see defense contractor rending in, but I don't let those cloud my own thinking process and judgment, neither I'll throw my lot on with the first statement that pleases my eardrum.

FYI, ever since that tweet came out, it has been flak by economist and scholar across all spectrum for how absurd it is. And when I see what you wrote, I can help but see the same technique and pattern are employed.
And that reason being they have been historically proven to be incorrect, repeatably, and have not even ONE good example to their grace. So if these people who are more qualified than you, who probably have a better data set to work with then you and still can't do their job .... give me one reason why me or anyone should trust your model/calculation aside from just agreeing with the narrative in principle? ;)
Cool, just go and work it out for yourself then, whats stopping you?
Did you treat what I said as a challenge or competition? Because if so you missed the points, completely. The points are:

- You can not do it, I can not do it, the people who are more qualified then us can not do it, and those who had been trying to do it has been consistently failing for 50-60 years.
- And since half of your argument is based on that kind of math, it's only reasonable to point out that it's flawed.
Last edited by Mightysword on Fri, 7. Dec 18, 22:59, edited 1 time in total.

Mightysword
Posts: 2225
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 06:11
x3tc

Re: Trump

Post by Mightysword » Fri, 7. Dec 18, 22:47

Morkonan wrote:
Fri, 7. Dec 18, 19:23
Like I wrote above, people prop up their heroes and condemn their villains. The truth is often somewhere in the middle. Well, sometimes it isn't in the middle, but those are truly rare events. The number of true sociopaths or extreme altruists is much less than common opinion would seem to insist.
So if most people can only speak on the extreme, what make of the people who try to speak in the middle, like me? As you can see in my current argument with @Bishop

- On one hand, you have people who supporting Trump (and Trump himself) saying he's the best business man in the world and he should be standing next to figure like Warren Buffet.
- On the other hand, you have people who hate him and adamant that Trump is nothing but a buffoon who wouldn't accomplish anything unless it falls on his laps.

Like you said, the truth is probably somewhere in between (which is again what I'm essentially arguing for). However is it really the case people willingly trump up their heroes, being aware they're inflating the facts? (Or in your word, they are just testing) I don't think so, the zeal and obsession most people have about their extreme view points kinda send the message that they truly believe their inflated view as the one true fact. :roll:

Again, I open the invitation: anyone else want to come and stand in the middle, we have this thing called "reason" that you will find in short supply most place else. More important, you'll find yourself more happy here, because we tend not to go looking for a reason to be pissed off at anything and everything. :P

Post Reply

Return to “Off Topic English”