17 ms·
> the thought has always been that the president was using a high leverage negotiating strategy Whose thought? The people who didn't know that trump was an in
by empath75 7y ago
> the thought has always been that the president was using a high leverage negotiating strategy
Whose thought? The people who didn't know that trump was an incompetent nutjob?
- polotics 7y agoIt's not so easy to distinguish the drunken master from the drunk. They walk the same.
- tempguy9999 7y agoNicely put, but a real drunken master doesn't get repeatedly decked. Look at trump's financial record, that should have been quite enough (6 bankruptcies was it?) Those who were fooled, were fooled because they chose to be.
- SkyBelow 7y agoWhy should the number of bankruptcies matter if the person is still rich? It shows that they are using it as a tool, which might inform us we need to consider how bankruptcies work, but that doesn't make someone incompetent. If you want to see someone who is incompetent with money, look at lottery winners who within 5 years end up worse than before they won.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- tempguy9999 7y agoI presume he became less rich by becoming bankrupt rather than more? If he could have been richer by not being bankrupt then that would indicate competence to me. Also daddy gave him $435 million IIRC. If everyone on HN had got that I suspect most of us would have done better.
- jimmaswell 7y agoIt's a bit different when someone is repeatedly bailed out by a richer parent.
- ethbro 7y agoHow's that different than being repeatedly bailed out with VC money?
- yourbandsucks 7y agoI don't think anyone's claiming that's something to aspire to either.
- bduerst 7y agoNepotism vs. Meritocracy (or at least a rationalized investment)
- pesmhey 7y agoThe Russians bailed him out and he’s been in their pocket ever since. In this particular case, that’s why the number of bankruptcies matter. In general, I agree with you.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- bduerst 7y agoNot sure why you're being downvoted, because you are correct. The president's repeated bankruptcies and inability to get a bank loan forced him to get funding from Russian oligarchs through Deutsche bank's private equity arm: https://www.wsj.com/articles/banks-give-documents-possibly-linked-to-trump-to-investigators-11565256601 https://www.wsj.com/articles/banks-give-documents-possibly-l... There's a good Planet Money podcast on it as well: https://www.npr.org/2019/05/22/725893104/episode-914-trump-and-deutsche-a-long-affair https://www.npr.org/2019/05/22/725893104/episode-914-trump-a... It is also why the Trump family has preemptively sued Deutsche bank in an attempt to seal records and obstruct any investigation.
- xiphias2 7y agoHe used it as a tool, the companies became bankrupt, he got rich. I imagine he will get rich even if U.S. goes through a bankrupcy.
- hedora 7y agoHe didn’t “get” rich. He was born rich. He would have much more money today if he had passively invested it. The man is a managerial train wreck that’s been consistently burning untold wealth for 30+ years. Much of what he has left was gotten by repeatedly breaking the law, and somehow only ending up with civil liability instead of criminal convictions. Now he is actively wrecking the US economy and has somehow bullied the GOP into going along with it.
- xiphias2 7y agoI agree with you that passive investment would have got the same gains, but it's much easier to see in hindsight, it was not that easy to see beforehand. He made money by burning other people and companies, but he came out quite well from it.
- throw0101a 7y agoNot being able to actively beat the market has been known since about 1973: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Random_Walk_Down_Wall_Street https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Random_Walk_Down_Wall_Street Bogle started Vanguard in 1975: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vanguard_Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vanguard_Group * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_fund#Origins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_fund#Origins
- usefulcat 7y ago"Known", yes, though probably not widely so. As I understand it, passive investing was generally considered a bad or at least risky idea at the time Vanguard was created.
- deleted 7y ago
- jacobolus 7y agoIf a career grifter manages to skate free while leaving a heap of rubble behind, we should surely praise them for their ingenuity at extracting money from their workers, suppliers, investors, or customers. What mastery!
- starlust2 7y agoCitation needed, and by that I mean his tax returns and financial statements. The public at large does not know how much Trump is worth because he won't disclose much of anything.
- SkyBelow 7y agoIf you want to play that game, then citation needed that he went bankrupt and I only take his tax returns and financial statements. See how this level of discussion of not just demanding a citation, but then limiting what citations you accept to an extremely small set of documents isn't constructive?
- tempguy9999 7y ago> If you want to play that game, then citation needed that he went bankrupt It's a reasonable question, but 1 minute googling got this report https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/kendalltaggart/here-are-donald-trumps-full-bankruptcy-filings https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/kendalltaggart/here-are... with 3 of them viz. The Trump Taj Mahal Casino Trump’s Plaza The Trump Castle Are these at least sufficient to convince you?
- SkyBelow 7y agoYou missed the part where I was (sarcastically) demanding the proof in a specific form that I know the reader doesn't have. It is one thing to say [citation needed]. It is quite another to say [citiation needed and by that I mean his tax returns and financial statements].
- tempguy9999 7y agoHere's the original question "The public at large does not know how much Trump is worth because he won't disclose much of anything" What evidence in your view, other than his his tax returns and financial statements, is there to show his wealth? Because that's fundamentally what's being requested. I don't think those exact documents are needed if there are good alternatives. Suggest some alternatives.
- tzakrajs 7y agoBecause he's a grifter who profits from other peoples losses.
- munificent 7y ago> Why should the number of bankruptcies matter if the person is still rich? If. Did Trump ever put more effort into anything in his campaign and Presidency than he put into preventing his tax returns from getting out?
- SkyBelow 7y agoEven if he is a lot poorer than he claims, he is still rich compared to what we normally consider rich vs poor. I'm not sure why we would suddenly change the baseline in this particular case. If you want to claim he isn't as rich as he claims, then then I'm not disputing that at all (I haven't a clue), but to claim he isn't rich does not align with existing evidence without fiddling with how we define rich and poor in ways we don't otherwise fiddle with such definitions.
- munificent 7y agoWhether or not he is rich tells you little unless you subtract out the effect of all of his inherited wealth. Having, say $300 million sounds like a lot. But if you inherited $700 million (as Trump likely did), having only $300 left today is a catastrophic failure.
- DocSavage 7y agoThe whole thread follows from a comment that the number of bankruptcies doesn't matter if he's rich. The point is not that he's rich. It's whether he's increased or decreased the fortune he was given. If he's given $413 million and now has less than that, he's not a good business man. Since we are blocked from all his finances, we don't know where he stands now, but the multiple bankruptcies and NYTimes investigation suggests he's not accumulated wealth more than spent it. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-wealth-fred-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-...
- fredophile 7y agoHow rich is he really? There is a lot of evidence that he has a long history of inflating his wealth and achievements. Combine this with his refusal to disclose financial info and I think that provides plenty of reason to doubt his current claims. Other tools he's used include hiring undocumented immigrants for construction and then not paying them and refusing to pay contractors that worked on his buildings. He maintains his wealth by making deals and then refusing to pay when the bill comes. The bankruptcies are just a part of this pattern of behaviour.
- blaser-waffle 7y agoIs he still rich? The fact that he still hasn't released his taxes raises a lot of questions. Mark Cuban speculated that he wasn't a billionaire, and maybe not even a 500-millionaire. He talked big and pushed the brand, because that's all he had. His main claim to fame, nearest I can tell, is a mix of poorly run real estate, reality TV, schlepping shit tier steaks, and his online university that got sued out of existence.
- hodder 7y agoI mean, 500 million is still pretty damn rich in my books. Sure he inherited it all, and has poorly managed the rest, but he is still rich by any normal person's metrics.
- duderific 7y agoHe was all but done for before The Apprentice success. That allowed him to parlay his name into a few successful licensing agreements, which salvaged what would have otherwise been a complete collapse.
- kelnos 7y agoAssuming Trump still is fairly rich (even if it's a much smaller rich than Trump would like to project), the fact remains that he is just not a very good businessman, and that he has held onto whatever money he does have in spite of his business acumen, not because of it. Put another way, if I were given $100M by my dad back in the 40+ years ago, and managed to grow it to, say, $500M by today, that would be nice, but I wouldn't consider myself "good with money". And it looks like the real figure for Trump may be north of $400M[0], which makes even $1B -- if he has that today -- look not all that impressive. We're talking about the US President here, someone we should feel comfortable with influencing/managing the fate of trillions of dollars. Trump is not that guy. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-tax-schemes-fred-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/d...
- WhompingWindows 7y ago1) There's little proof he was rich when he was running for President, he may well have been indebted to foreign powers at the time. The "under audit" story is clearly BS, what was he hiding? 2) His wealth was not created by himself, at any rate. He lied and said he inherited a small loan of a million, when in fact it was at least 2 orders of magnitude more than that. His father was the real smart businessman and his career has largely been failure upon failure. 3) He basically did win the lottery of being born to a wealthy father and squandered it all. How much did he squander is very hard to say when he himself covers up the details. So yes, he is incompetent with money and business. He is competent with power, intimidation, and getting his way. That may have worked in the small pond of the 2016 election, but that is about the only place the man's been successful.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- CamperBob2 7y agoWhy should the number of bankruptcies matter if the person is still rich? Because money laundering is illegal?
- mraudiobook_com 7y agoTrump won the genetic lottery and ended up with less than he started, so what was your point?
- asdf21 7y agoThere are strategic bankruptcies..
- tempguy9999 7y agoSerious question: how do these work, and can you actually make money off. or can you only limit cash losses with them?
- basementcat 7y agoOne strategy might be to start with a number of business entities; move "troubled assets" of all entities into a single entity and have that entity declare bankruptcy.
- bduerst 7y agoOnly as a last ditch attempt to preserve some business assets and wipe out debt, after exhausting all other options to raise cash, improve sales, refinance, issue equity, restructure, or other normal business operations to keep the company operating. And no, those six bankruptcies were not strategic, they were failures to operate a business. One bankruptcy is strategic, two a coincidence, six a signal of incompetence. The sheer number of shell corps he's founded and thousands of civil court cases points to exploiting investors through shady practices.
- asdf21 7y agoYou have multiple businesses, and sell assets between them... then bankrupt the lame ones. Example: Business 1 buys a $1M piece of equipment with 30% down and 70% credit. After a couple years, and knowing that Business 1 is not that profitable anyway, the machine is sold to Business 2 for $150k, even though it's probably worth $700k still. Business 2 makes $550k profit on the books. Business 1 files bankruptcy. The creditor loses their $250k outstanding loan. If the same owners own both businesses, they come out massively ahead. Rinse / repeat with dozens (or hundreds) of businesses, some automated workflows and depreciation tables, credit line hacking, etc.
- 7y ago
- nwalker85 7y agoTrump has created 515 businesses and only 11 of them failed. That's a 98.64% success rate. He has a better track record than Elon Musk by an order of magnitude.
- kickopotomus 7y agoCitation? What 515 businesses did he create?
- phat_gopher 7y agohttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2175187-trump.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2175187-trump.html
- kickopotomus 7y agoAh, now nwalker85's comment makes more sense although it is patently false. A more accurate assessment is that Trump has been associated with 515 business entities. The vast majority of those entities are shell corporations or LLCs meant to (as the name implies) limit liability. He did not create 515 for-profit businesses.
- simtel20 7y agoCitation? In what business did he see more success than Elon Musk?
- fredophile 7y agoHow many of those are real businesses? If all the company does is hold a single asset, such as a private plane, or only has other Trump org companies as customers then it isn't a real business. I'll bet most of those companies exist solely to limit liability or for tax reasons.
- throw0101a 7y agoBy "businesses" do you perhaps mean "shell corporations"? :)
- shitgoose 7y agojust 6 bankruptcies? that is pretty good rate for the number of businesses he started.
- mraudiobook_com 7y agoHe has started 7 businesses.
- simplecomplex 7y agoNope. Life is not a movie. There are no drunken masters. Being president isn’t a kungfu movie, even though Trump voters probably think it is.
- HillaryBriss 7y agoRight now it's a reality TV show. But, one day, a bright shining star will make it into a Kung Fu movie. And I believe! #JackieChan2024
- AlexCoventry 7y agohttps://www.reddit.com/r/Sino/comments/cq3o12 https://www.reddit.com/r/Sino/comments/cq3o12
- HillaryBriss 7y agoright. exactly. after China buys the US, Jackie Chan becomes president.
- skrowl 7y agoHe made billions of dollars in real estate and other industries, then when on to become POTUS. HOW CAN ONE MAN BE SO INCOMPETENT!?!
- asdf21 7y agoUh-oh, don't break the narrative. Obviously starting the Clinton Foundation with Epstein is where the true genius lies.
- mwfunk 7y agoWRT making billions of dollars, clearly he didn't. WRT getting elected, he got 3mil fewer votes than his opponent, so you can thank the dysfunction of the EC. WRT to the votes he did get, it's pretty obvious- people dumber than he is, who are apparently blind to seeing his completely obvious con artist act and voting for him, that's how. By completely obvious I mean, the-sky-is-blue, 1+1=2 obvious. That's how obvious it is that he's a bullshitter and a useful idiot for a lot of shitty people, and has no idea how anything works, and basically has the intellect and integrity of a first grader. Downvote me all you want everyone, but that's the truth. Every downvote I will take with great, great pride. If you voted for him, you're even dumber (or more selfish, if you think of him as your own useful idiot) than he is. I have had a lifelong problem with constantly doubting my own perceptions about things, and always thinking that I can never be 100% certain about anything, and being hypervigilant about my own potential sources of bias and irrationality and unreliable information, but multiple years into this thing I have no choice but to admit that everything I wrote above is just plain true. It's not rocket science, it's not brain surgery, it's not even grade school arithmetic. It's OBVIOUS, and if someone doesn't see it after all these years they either don't pay attention or are as bad or worse than he is. Or they're literally children who are just that sheltered and naive about other people and the world and how it works.
- refurb 7y agoYou might want to consider the idea that people who disagree with you politically might in fact not be dumb, but just have views that differ from yours. Just a thought.
- JeremyNT 7y agoRegardless of the man himself, historically the "deep state" (for lack of a better phrase) has so much inertia that radical changes (even if desired) by the White House end up moderated. I think it's more correct to say that people are realizing that the old order under the president is gradually eroding and its moderating effects are weakening, which adds compounding risks (directly in the trade war stuff but also hidden ones that may be lurking as that erratic behavior starts more directly impacting all aspects of US policy).
- rwoodley 7y agoTrade is one area where the president can act independently and assertively regardless of any 'deep state' (if such a thing even exists). So this trade war was initiated by Trump and his inner circle of advisors. The trade war is not the only thing impacting the yield curve inversion, but it is a real factor.
- dobleboble 7y ago"federal government" is probably a better term than "deep state" unless you're intentionally trying to be inflammatory...
- ben_jones 7y agoI think the rational definition of Deep State is just the government “lifers” who stay in significant spheres of influence for most of their career. I.e. key defense, intelligence, financial, etc positions.
- dragontamer 7y agoThe problem is that "Deep State" is a loaded term. You could very well argue that the N-word is a historically accurate (and Latin) way to describe African Americans. Instead of using "Deep State", it might be better to say "Agency Directors", if you wanted to use neutral language. "Deep State" is loaded. Of course, its more popular these days to value-signal which side of an argument you're on, rather than appearing neutral... In any effect, the people who use the word "Deep State" wish to imply that government workers have their own agendas. In my experience however, government workers overwhelmingly just want to do a good job with the task they've been assigned (much like any other human who are tasked with a job).
- _bxg1 7y agoWorse than incompetent, he's enormously impulsive.