It goes back to the old saying of FDR on Somoza: he's' a SOB, but he's our SOB. This seems to be the thinking on Trump as well.
He's a sleezy, rich guy who manipulates the rules for his own private gain but once he is POTUS he will employ these skills in our interest.
This is what Larry, a Money Illusion reader left in the comments section.
“Trump is a faux-tribalist. The only thing real about his positions is whether they will help him. Ideology for him is just a tool. He’s on his side, not yours. The q is whether there is a way to turn that to the nation’s advantage.”
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=31701#comment-740328
Doesn't sound like a very good bet to me. I doubt the hens would make that bet with the fox.
The theory is that this is a guy who knows how to make a deal. This is why we really need his tax returns more than usual even.
Here is a guy with no public record whatsoever. So how do we even hope to judge what his alleged skill set really is? His tax returns would go some way into vetting him:
"Trump's father was a multimillionaire, and Trump started off with about $40 million in the mid-70s. Suppose Trump is really worth $1 billion rather than $9 billion. Well, $1 billion is unquestionably a lot of money. But turning $40 million into $1 billion over 40 years of investing would actually be a pretty dismal investment performance compared with putting the money into a passive fund."
"If Trump had been born penniless, the fact that he's clearly rich today would be impressive. But Trump was born rich. So to know how impressive his current rich-guy status really is, we genuinely need a clear picture of exactly how rich he is. Tax returns would give us that in a way that nothing else does."
http://www.vox.com/2016/5/12/11662122/donald-trump-tax-return
So why would a dealmaker with such a dismal record do any better as POTUS?
Meanwhile, the very idea that of a CEO President is based on the illusion that you would expect a CEO of a corporation to be a great 'CEO of America.'
http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-05-11/the-u-s-doesn-t-need-a-ceo-in-chief
As Megan McArdle points out:
1. Trump is not that great a businessman
2. Even if he was there is reason to be pretty skeptical that a great businessman would be a great POTUS? Would you think a great car mechanic or great plumber would be a great POTUS.
3. Trump''s absurd talk of defaulting on US debt shows exactly why 2 is the case.
"Even the biggest company operates in a world where there are lots of other sources of stability to help mitigate a firm-wide crisis. There are banks that can lend, courts that can referee, other, governments that can step in with help in extremis. The U.S. government, by contrast, operates in a world where the globe catches cold when we sneeze -- as we saw so vividly illustrated in 2008. There are no external stabilizers for us to fall back on, because financial instability here would gut the very institutions we’d want to shore us up. Approaching our government debt using the lessons learned as the CEO of an overleveraged real estate operation wouldn’t be canny business; it would be catastrophic."
"The list of such mistaken parallels goes on and on. You can’t analogize national trade accounts to a firm’s profit-and-loss statement; you don’t treat a nuclear-armed nation the way you would a recalcitrant vendor; there is no way to fire or demote difficult congressmen; and every single thing you do will be under constant scrutiny from 300 million angry auditors, not to mention your international competition. The power of the presidency is immense, of course, but it also immensely constrained by factors a businessman has never encountered. Which may be why the history of successful businessmen in national politics is actually somewhat unimpressive."
Basically the history of successful businessmen in politics is not so impressive and Trump's not so impressive a businessman.
But by all means, put him in charge of the chicken coop.
He's a sleezy, rich guy who manipulates the rules for his own private gain but once he is POTUS he will employ these skills in our interest.
This is what Larry, a Money Illusion reader left in the comments section.
“Trump is a faux-tribalist. The only thing real about his positions is whether they will help him. Ideology for him is just a tool. He’s on his side, not yours. The q is whether there is a way to turn that to the nation’s advantage.”
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=31701#comment-740328
Doesn't sound like a very good bet to me. I doubt the hens would make that bet with the fox.
The theory is that this is a guy who knows how to make a deal. This is why we really need his tax returns more than usual even.
Here is a guy with no public record whatsoever. So how do we even hope to judge what his alleged skill set really is? His tax returns would go some way into vetting him:
"Trump's father was a multimillionaire, and Trump started off with about $40 million in the mid-70s. Suppose Trump is really worth $1 billion rather than $9 billion. Well, $1 billion is unquestionably a lot of money. But turning $40 million into $1 billion over 40 years of investing would actually be a pretty dismal investment performance compared with putting the money into a passive fund."
"If Trump had been born penniless, the fact that he's clearly rich today would be impressive. But Trump was born rich. So to know how impressive his current rich-guy status really is, we genuinely need a clear picture of exactly how rich he is. Tax returns would give us that in a way that nothing else does."
http://www.vox.com/2016/5/12/11662122/donald-trump-tax-return
So why would a dealmaker with such a dismal record do any better as POTUS?
Meanwhile, the very idea that of a CEO President is based on the illusion that you would expect a CEO of a corporation to be a great 'CEO of America.'
http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-05-11/the-u-s-doesn-t-need-a-ceo-in-chief
As Megan McArdle points out:
1. Trump is not that great a businessman
2. Even if he was there is reason to be pretty skeptical that a great businessman would be a great POTUS? Would you think a great car mechanic or great plumber would be a great POTUS.
3. Trump''s absurd talk of defaulting on US debt shows exactly why 2 is the case.
"Even the biggest company operates in a world where there are lots of other sources of stability to help mitigate a firm-wide crisis. There are banks that can lend, courts that can referee, other, governments that can step in with help in extremis. The U.S. government, by contrast, operates in a world where the globe catches cold when we sneeze -- as we saw so vividly illustrated in 2008. There are no external stabilizers for us to fall back on, because financial instability here would gut the very institutions we’d want to shore us up. Approaching our government debt using the lessons learned as the CEO of an overleveraged real estate operation wouldn’t be canny business; it would be catastrophic."
"The list of such mistaken parallels goes on and on. You can’t analogize national trade accounts to a firm’s profit-and-loss statement; you don’t treat a nuclear-armed nation the way you would a recalcitrant vendor; there is no way to fire or demote difficult congressmen; and every single thing you do will be under constant scrutiny from 300 million angry auditors, not to mention your international competition. The power of the presidency is immense, of course, but it also immensely constrained by factors a businessman has never encountered. Which may be why the history of successful businessmen in national politics is actually somewhat unimpressive."
Basically the history of successful businessmen in politics is not so impressive and Trump's not so impressive a businessman.
But by all means, put him in charge of the chicken coop.
Good post Mike. I thought for a minute you meant Fox news... but I soon figured it out.
ReplyDeleteBTW, I liked Jennifer Rubin on this:
"At the end of the campaign, their policy stances eviscerated, their vitriol at fellow conservatives overflowing and their political judgment mocked, the pro-Trump forces may no longer be in a position to lead a united party. Meanwhile, the #NeverTrump forces’ disdain and amazement at Trumpkins’ affinity for self-delusion grows with each cringe-worthy episode. The former’s new perspective on their fellow Republicans provides newfound perspective and maturity, allowing them to step outside the right-wing echo chamber and ignore, maybe permanently, talk show hosts’ inanities. One senses it is more likely after six more months of this that Trump will have succeeded in shredding the GOP “brand” and widening the chasm between the two sides of the party to such an extent that the conservative movement will require a new party or a Republican Party with an entire new cast of characters, outlook and mode of operation."
Emphasis added. I like to think that was going to be true, but then I remember that at least three prominent #NeverTrumpers are talk show radio hosts (Erickson, Beck and Levin), so I'm not sure they'd sign up for that.
It was kind of odd seeing Levin and Erickson making fun of Trump for accepting the support of Adelson though. I wonder what E. Harding thought of that... Sumner calls him an anti-semite... and he does seem to hold to some fringe conspiracy theories. How can he justify $100 million from Adelson. Bill Maher even brought it up: he called it the first known case of an internet troll being supported by an actual troll (he had a picture of Adelson that made it clear that he was the "actual troll" he was referring to).
That joke about Adelson is 1st up in his latest "New Rules" segment. Enjoy!
Delete... and actually, that particular New Rules is worth watching to the end, because his final point (the one he always spends the most time on) is that the GOP can't wriggle out of owning Trump and his followers... even though they're trying to by blaming the Trump phenomena on Political Correctness, or liberals or Obama (he has several recent examples of this).
Hmm, maybe it's not so far fetched that right-wingers will breath the air outside their bubble:
Deletehttp://theresurgent.com/some-thoughts-on-facebook-and-conservatives/
At the same time, Erickson is aware that Facebook is a private enterprise (he even says so), but somehow it's their assumed duty to be "fair" to conservatives? Why? Is this right wing whining? Is this a right wing version of the "fairness doctrine" that long ago disappeared from the air-waves, and which Limbaugh still vilifies? If right-wingers want a "fair" social networking sight, why don't they get off their lazy asses and invent one?
So I have mixed feelings about that piece by Erickson... but still, overall I think it's more positive than I would have expected.
I usually get along with E. Harding ok. But then I haven't delved into too much with him.
Deleteasdf is a real nasty racist-even Scott called him out.
"sdf, You said:"
“Libertarian Somalia”
"All we need to know what an idiot you are."
"As far as all your racist rantings, how do you explain that whites are moving in droves to Texas, one of the few states where “minorities” are in the majority? There must be something they like there. And don’t say cheap houses—houses are cheap all through the center of the country. What do they like about a state where whites are in the minority?"
"They say that in 50 years America will look like Texas, demographically. Is that so bad?"
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=31701
Ha... in a previous post I'd left a comment for Sumner with some links to Trump "fan art" including a more flattering version of that one of Trump on his horse a la Napoleon. ... When I saw the version Sumner posted I still looked for a H/T to me, but no such luck. =)
DeleteUsually he H/Ts. He even gave me a couple, so I wonder what happened.
DeleteWell for one, it's not exactly the same picture. The one I linked to was truly "fan art." The one Sumner used is the same basic thing, except Trump's head was enlarged and is more mocking than fan art.
DeletePerhaps he'd independently found the mocking one. I don't really care too much.
Hey Tom,
DeleteI think there already was a conservative social networking site. My Space was a Rupert Murdoch project I think. He may not have started it but he bought it .....and ruined it.
Yes it is always worth a chuckle to listen to conservatives whine about fairness. I hope Zuckerberg doesn't kowtow to them..... not that I use Facebook at all anymore.
I've never used FB much. I'm a Twitter man
Delete