7 ms·

Paradoxically, while Trump has accomplished very little but make speeches, the damage his presidency has done to our image, and perception of how welcoming Amer

by atonse 9y ago

Paradoxically, while Trump has accomplished very little but make speeches, the damage his presidency has done to our image, and perception of how welcoming America is, will be felt for years. It's bringing back memories of our dismal global perception around 2006-2008. (Although this wasn't for "America is unwelcoming" reasons)

douche 9y ago
It's been great for my 401k, though. The best months in the past ten years were November 2016 and January 2017.
- quantdev 9y ago
  Those gains were most likely based on the anticipation of tax cuts (increasing consumer spending and the supply of investable capital), deregulation (allowing higher profits, most notably by banks), and repatriation (allowing share buy backs). So far, none of those has happened and it remains to be seen if they will. If they don't, I don't expect a market decline, but just a smaller total cumulative growth since November that has nothing to do with Trump's election or the general agenda I outlined above.
  - astrange 9y ago
    Tax cuts on the rich don't increase consumer spending, since rich people don't spend all their money (proof: they're rich). Although this is a popular theory, mostly promoted by the people who don't want to pay taxes.
    - quantdev 9y ago
      Tax cuts to the rich increase investable capital, as I said. Trump also proposed tax cuts for everyone else, too, which would increase consumer spending.
threeseed 9y ago
It's going to be devastating over the long term. Those of us even in Australia are wary now of travelling to the US because of (a) fear they maybe mistakenly detained, (b) having to turn over social media information and (c) visa problems at the arrival gate. Places like Berlin, Amsterdam etc are looking far more interesting for startups because of the access to the European market and the sensible policies that seem to be enacted e.g. roaming.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- nxtrafalgar 9y ago
  Exactly. Countries definitely lose out because of these policies. I intended to visit China in the near future -- but I've booked a trip to Taiwan instead, almost entirely because Taiwan doesn't require me to get a visa. Likewise, I can't see myself ever living in the US as long as I have access to free movement in Europe.
  - bogomipz 9y ago
    >"I intended to visit China in the near future -- but I've booked a trip to Taiwan instead, almost entirely because Taiwan doesn't require me to get a visa." You still get a visa to enter Taiwan. It's just a "visa on arrival" as opposed to needing to obtain a visa prior to travel. Visa policies are reciprocal between countries. China and the US both charge citizens from each other's countries to visit for tourist purposes and that must be paid prior to travel. Tourist visa policies and immigrations polices have very little if anything to do with each other. I think you might be short changing yourself if your only reason for not visiting mainland China is solely because they require a visa. It's less than a hundred bucks, it's basically a tourist tax. You likely won't regret it.
    - nxtrafalgar 9y ago
      >You still get a visa to enter Taiwan. It's just a "visa on arrival" as opposed to needing to obtain a visa prior to travel. Sure -- 'doesn't require me to get a visa' as in I don't have to make a trip to an embassy or pay a fee. I'm sure I'll visit China eventually, but for the sort of low-budget travelling I'm doing, an entry visa represents a not-insignificant amount of the total cost. It also makes things less flexible: as I understand, authorities must be notified of exact travel plans before you depart.
aaron-lebo 9y ago
Nah, people have short attention spans. You cite the dismal perception from 2006-2008, but what changed? In 2008 Obama was elected and everything is new again and he won the Nobel. Did the country completely change in 2 years? Has it changed that much in 8? Not really, that's why getting so riled up over singular negative events isn't worth your time. Things change fast, and countries have long histories. Germany and Japan were ruled by jingoist elites for centuries and just 80 years ago they were culling populations. Today they are examples of doing it right. Do we really believe 4 years of a bad leader is gonna flip centuries of progress? It's an issue, yeah, but let's not overstate it because that' s not being honest with ourselves.
- atonse 9y ago
  Assuming Trump stays for the full term (all signs point that way right now, no matter what impeachment hopes and dreams people have), four years of damage is pretty long. And you're right, in the grand scheme of things, it may not matter. But four years is a pretty long time in tech-timelines for other countries to start catching up to Silicon Valley's vibrancy.
  - camus2 9y ago
    > Assuming Trump stays for the full term (all signs point that way right now, no matter what impeachment hopes and dreams people have), four years of damage is pretty long Bush damaged US reputation way more than Trump, USA did recover. For entrepreneurs and talents, Canada, Germany or France just can't compete, especially France with a bureaucracy that will crush one's bones.
    - bogomipz 9y ago
      >"Bush damaged US reputation way more than Trump, USA did recover" George W. Bush was in office for 8 years, Trump has been in office for 6 months. How can you realistically compare the two? I also don't understand the past tense. Trump is still a sitting President.
    - jerrylives 9y ago
orbifold 9y ago
At least from my perspective so far he is not significantly worse so far than say George W. Bush, he might be if he starts new wars, but that seems unlikely. Pretty much all the previous presidents screwed over the rest of the world in some way or another. Just to give you an example in 2013 in 35% of Germans believed the US government to be trustworthy (Snowden NSA spying revelations) according to infratest dimap, now that value is at 22%, only slightly higher than that of Russia (20%).
- dmix 9y ago
  People were convinced Trump was going to turn the US into an authoritarian/fascist state well before he even proposed any actual practical policies. They continue to despite the fact he has failed to pass any meaningful legislation beyond congress/courts months after getting into office. With the exception of dropping out of the largely non-binding Paris accord. Sadly I doubt this will be dependent on what he actually does vs other politicians. It's entirely about perception. This Russia congressional hearing is getting 10x the amount of coverage than the CIA torture hearing - if that's any indication of perception vs national priorities. The blatant criminality and anti-American behaviour by the CIA and the executive branch was far more obvious in that case going into the hearing. They openly destroyed 92 videos tapes of interrogations at a black site which would have provided direct evidence of abuse [1] which not a single person got punished for. Yet Jeff Session refusing to answer a few questions about private conversations with Trump got more scrutiny than the CIA did when they refused to release a 10,000 page report on their torture practices, using the same legal basis as Sessions did citing executive privilege during Obama's administration. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_CIA_interrogation_tapes_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_CIA_interrogation_tapes_d...
  - jonny_eh 9y ago
    Firing the head of the FBI for investigating his campaign was an authoritarian move. It remains to be seen if he gets away with it. If he does, America has become Authoritarian (i.e. when the law no longer applies to the leader).
weberc2 9y ago
I hope no one thinks that Trump is emblematic of a country that elected Obama 4 and 8 years prior. I can only imagine Trump is a passing fad; then again, I said that at every stage of his campaign...
- krapp 9y ago
  He was elected, despite his numerous faults - so he and his policies are emblematic of at least enough of the country to be politically relevant.
  - weberc2 9y ago
    What does "political relevance" have to do with political longevity? We're not a fundamentally different country now than we were last year, and policies created with a pen stroker can be struck down just as easily. Anyone who thinks that Trump's policies are a good predictor of future US policy need to explain their rationale because it doesn't follow reason.
    - tangent128 9y ago
      The rationale: we aren't a fundamentally different country now, and won't be fundamentally different after Trump's term is over. Thus, no matter how progressive or good-neighborly future administration policies are, allies now have to build in the risk that every 4 years there will be a 50:50 chance that those policies will be reversed and any agreements voided.
      - weberc2 9y ago
        How do you suppose one Trump election drives those odds up so high? And what percentage of international agreements has Trump actually voided? As bad as things may be, the sky isn't actually falling, and it does us no good to pretend otherwise.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

by atonse 9y ago

douche 9y ago

It's been great for my 401k, though. The best months in the past ten years were November 2016 and January 2017.

quantdev 9y ago
Those gains were most likely based on the anticipation of tax cuts (increasing consumer spending and the supply of investable capital), deregulation (allowing higher profits, most notably by banks), and repatriation (allowing share buy backs). So far, none of those has happened and it remains to be seen if they will. If they don't, I don't expect a market decline, but just a smaller total cumulative growth since November that has nothing to do with Trump's election or the general agenda I outlined above.
- astrange 9y ago
  Tax cuts on the rich don't increase consumer spending, since rich people don't spend all their money (proof: they're rich). Although this is a popular theory, mostly promoted by the people who don't want to pay taxes.
  - quantdev 9y ago
    Tax cuts to the rich increase investable capital, as I said. Trump also proposed tax cuts for everyone else, too, which would increase consumer spending.

threeseed 9y ago

It's going to be devastating over the long term. Those of us even in Australia are wary now of travelling to the US because of (a) fear they maybe mistakenly detained, (b) having to turn over social media information and (c) visa problems at the arrival gate. Places like Berlin, Amsterdam etc are looking far more interesting for startups because of the access to the European market and the sensible policies that seem to be enacted e.g. roaming.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
nxtrafalgar 9y ago
Exactly. Countries definitely lose out because of these policies. I intended to visit China in the near future -- but I've booked a trip to Taiwan instead, almost entirely because Taiwan doesn't require me to get a visa. Likewise, I can't see myself ever living in the US as long as I have access to free movement in Europe.
- bogomipz 9y ago
  >"I intended to visit China in the near future -- but I've booked a trip to Taiwan instead, almost entirely because Taiwan doesn't require me to get a visa." You still get a visa to enter Taiwan. It's just a "visa on arrival" as opposed to needing to obtain a visa prior to travel. Visa policies are reciprocal between countries. China and the US both charge citizens from each other's countries to visit for tourist purposes and that must be paid prior to travel. Tourist visa policies and immigrations polices have very little if anything to do with each other. I think you might be short changing yourself if your only reason for not visiting mainland China is solely because they require a visa. It's less than a hundred bucks, it's basically a tourist tax. You likely won't regret it.
  - nxtrafalgar 9y ago
    >You still get a visa to enter Taiwan. It's just a "visa on arrival" as opposed to needing to obtain a visa prior to travel. Sure -- 'doesn't require me to get a visa' as in I don't have to make a trip to an embassy or pay a fee. I'm sure I'll visit China eventually, but for the sort of low-budget travelling I'm doing, an entry visa represents a not-insignificant amount of the total cost. It also makes things less flexible: as I understand, authorities must be notified of exact travel plans before you depart.

aaron-lebo 9y ago

Nah, people have short attention spans. You cite the dismal perception from 2006-2008, but what changed? In 2008 Obama was elected and everything is new again and he won the Nobel. Did the country completely change in 2 years? Has it changed that much in 8? Not really, that's why getting so riled up over singular negative events isn't worth your time. Things change fast, and countries have long histories. Germany and Japan were ruled by jingoist elites for centuries and just 80 years ago they were culling populations. Today they are examples of doing it right. Do we really believe 4 years of a bad leader is gonna flip centuries of progress? It's an issue, yeah, but let's not overstate it because that' s not being honest with ourselves.

atonse 9y ago
Assuming Trump stays for the full term (all signs point that way right now, no matter what impeachment hopes and dreams people have), four years of damage is pretty long. And you're right, in the grand scheme of things, it may not matter. But four years is a pretty long time in tech-timelines for other countries to start catching up to Silicon Valley's vibrancy.
- camus2 9y ago
  > Assuming Trump stays for the full term (all signs point that way right now, no matter what impeachment hopes and dreams people have), four years of damage is pretty long Bush damaged US reputation way more than Trump, USA did recover. For entrepreneurs and talents, Canada, Germany or France just can't compete, especially France with a bureaucracy that will crush one's bones.
  - bogomipz 9y ago
    >"Bush damaged US reputation way more than Trump, USA did recover" George W. Bush was in office for 8 years, Trump has been in office for 6 months. How can you realistically compare the two? I also don't understand the past tense. Trump is still a sitting President.
  - jerrylives 9y ago

orbifold 9y ago

At least from my perspective so far he is not significantly worse so far than say George W. Bush, he might be if he starts new wars, but that seems unlikely. Pretty much all the previous presidents screwed over the rest of the world in some way or another. Just to give you an example in 2013 in 35% of Germans believed the US government to be trustworthy (Snowden NSA spying revelations) according to infratest dimap, now that value is at 22%, only slightly higher than that of Russia (20%).

dmix 9y ago
People were convinced Trump was going to turn the US into an authoritarian/fascist state well before he even proposed any actual practical policies. They continue to despite the fact he has failed to pass any meaningful legislation beyond congress/courts months after getting into office. With the exception of dropping out of the largely non-binding Paris accord. Sadly I doubt this will be dependent on what he actually does vs other politicians. It's entirely about perception. This Russia congressional hearing is getting 10x the amount of coverage than the CIA torture hearing - if that's any indication of perception vs national priorities. The blatant criminality and anti-American behaviour by the CIA and the executive branch was far more obvious in that case going into the hearing. They openly destroyed 92 videos tapes of interrogations at a black site which would have provided direct evidence of abuse [1] which not a single person got punished for. Yet Jeff Session refusing to answer a few questions about private conversations with Trump got more scrutiny than the CIA did when they refused to release a 10,000 page report on their torture practices, using the same legal basis as Sessions did citing executive privilege during Obama's administration. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_CIA_interrogation_tapes_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_CIA_interrogation_tapes_d...
- jonny_eh 9y ago
  Firing the head of the FBI for investigating his campaign was an authoritarian move. It remains to be seen if he gets away with it. If he does, America has become Authoritarian (i.e. when the law no longer applies to the leader).

weberc2 9y ago

I hope no one thinks that Trump is emblematic of a country that elected Obama 4 and 8 years prior. I can only imagine Trump is a passing fad; then again, I said that at every stage of his campaign...

krapp 9y ago
He was elected, despite his numerous faults - so he and his policies are emblematic of at least enough of the country to be politically relevant.
- weberc2 9y ago
  What does "political relevance" have to do with political longevity? We're not a fundamentally different country now than we were last year, and policies created with a pen stroker can be struck down just as easily. Anyone who thinks that Trump's policies are a good predictor of future US policy need to explain their rationale because it doesn't follow reason.
  - tangent128 9y ago
    The rationale: we aren't a fundamentally different country now, and won't be fundamentally different after Trump's term is over. Thus, no matter how progressive or good-neighborly future administration policies are, allies now have to build in the risk that every 4 years there will be a 50:50 chance that those policies will be reversed and any agreements voided.
    - weberc2 9y ago
      How do you suppose one Trump election drives those odds up so high? And what percentage of international agreements has Trump actually voided? As bad as things may be, the sky isn't actually falling, and it does us no good to pretend otherwise.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]