|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 20 2016 02:41 LegalLord wrote: I mean, Trump is pretty clearly a highly successful businessman. Everyone who tries to say otherwise purely by virtue of the fact that they don't like him makes the anti-Trump side look like complete morons. He's certainly a famous businessman; it's not claer if he's highly successful or not. moderately successful, sure. and people who say otherwise aren't doing it purely because they hate trump, but because there's a number of indicators that make it unclear how much actual value he has. It's fundamentally unsonud to claim people say otherwise purely because they dislike him.
|
On June 20 2016 03:27 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2016 02:44 Gorsameth wrote:On June 20 2016 02:41 LegalLord wrote: I mean, Trump is pretty clearly a highly successful businessman. Everyone who tries to say otherwise purely by virtue of the fact that they don't like him makes the anti-Trump side look like complete morons. Putting his daddies starting money into stock and sitting on his ass would have made him just as rich as he is today. That is why people call him a mediocre businessman. His 'success' is in not having lost it all like others have. Yep, this line of argument. Safe to say that it's garbage. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-09-03/should-donald-trump-have-indexed-Sure, he's not some sort of business genius, but you'd be better off attacking him on his policies rather than trying to prove he's a bad businessman, which he isn't. The latter makes you look like a petty loser. Responding to your statement that he is 'highly successful' is now attacking Trump?
|
To be fair, no wealthy person can say with any strong degree of certainty exactly how wealthy they are. The more you have, the less clear it is exactly how much you have because the "fair market value" of all your earnings is always in motion. I'd say that Trump is somewhere in the "2 to 10 billion" range for net worth, and that we probably can't do better than that.
I can largely agree with this, though I think we can narrow the collar a bit if we focus on tangible assets vs. stuff like the Trump brand and whatever value he's assigned to that. I'd peg him for 1b - 4b personally. Be interesting to see what a proper valuation firm would say it's worth. I am however curious why he feels the need to do deals like Trump steaks, uni, etc. It's pocket change to him.
Far as being a good businessman, I'm not exactly sold. Going after the NY luxury real estate market was a good idea, but those are deals that required his dad's reputation, money, connections and signature to make happen. And making money off of it wasn't exactly hard if you had access to it.
One of the ironies of this race is the Republicans are running a loudmouthed silver spooned billionaire against Hillary who is pretty much the epitome of hardworking middle class working her way to great success. An oversimplification of course, but a fun one to make.
|
Trump is finally done with the pretenses. Now openly saying we need to profile muslims, even the American ones.
Great guy.
|
ticklish -> because he is a Narcissist? There seems to be more than enoug hevidence to establish a clinical classification of narcissism; and as such, putting his name on everything he can is something he'd want to do.
|
On June 20 2016 03:30 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2016 02:41 LegalLord wrote: I mean, Trump is pretty clearly a highly successful businessman. Everyone who tries to say otherwise purely by virtue of the fact that they don't like him makes the anti-Trump side look like complete morons. He's certainly a famous businessman; it's not claer if he's highly successful or not. moderately successful, sure. and people who say otherwise aren't doing it purely because they hate trump, but because there's a number of indicators that make it unclear how much actual value he has. It's fundamentally unsonud to claim people say otherwise purely because they dislike him. How is being worth 10 billion dollars moderately successful? Even if you take the Forbes 4,5 billion estimate as true that still makes him the 121 richest person in the America according to them.
How is being the 121. richest person in the America 'moderately successful'?
edit: I feel like I'm rock bottom successful right now 
edit2: Yeah, it was a richest people in america list, my bad
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 20 2016 03:44 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2016 03:27 LegalLord wrote:On June 20 2016 02:44 Gorsameth wrote:On June 20 2016 02:41 LegalLord wrote: I mean, Trump is pretty clearly a highly successful businessman. Everyone who tries to say otherwise purely by virtue of the fact that they don't like him makes the anti-Trump side look like complete morons. Putting his daddies starting money into stock and sitting on his ass would have made him just as rich as he is today. That is why people call him a mediocre businessman. His 'success' is in not having lost it all like others have. Yep, this line of argument. Safe to say that it's garbage. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-09-03/should-donald-trump-have-indexed-Sure, he's not some sort of business genius, but you'd be better off attacking him on his policies rather than trying to prove he's a bad businessman, which he isn't. The latter makes you look like a petty loser. Responding to your statement that he is 'highly successful' is now attacking Trump? Using the index fund argument is stupid and incorrect. There are a lot more issues, more legitimate ones, that you can attack him for.
|
On June 20 2016 03:52 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2016 03:44 Gorsameth wrote:On June 20 2016 03:27 LegalLord wrote:On June 20 2016 02:44 Gorsameth wrote:On June 20 2016 02:41 LegalLord wrote: I mean, Trump is pretty clearly a highly successful businessman. Everyone who tries to say otherwise purely by virtue of the fact that they don't like him makes the anti-Trump side look like complete morons. Putting his daddies starting money into stock and sitting on his ass would have made him just as rich as he is today. That is why people call him a mediocre businessman. His 'success' is in not having lost it all like others have. Yep, this line of argument. Safe to say that it's garbage. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-09-03/should-donald-trump-have-indexed-Sure, he's not some sort of business genius, but you'd be better off attacking him on his policies rather than trying to prove he's a bad businessman, which he isn't. The latter makes you look like a petty loser. Responding to your statement that he is 'highly successful' is now attacking Trump? Using the index fund argument is stupid and incorrect. There are a lot more issues, more legitimate ones, that you can attack him for. Was I responding to Trumps viability as a presidential candidate or was I responding to your statement that he is highly successful?
Why should I talk about how useless/dumb/insulting his muslim ban is when someone brings up his wealth?
|
On June 20 2016 03:27 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2016 02:46 oBlade wrote:On June 20 2016 02:33 Doodsmack wrote: I'll bet Trump isn't even worth $1 billion. He's not that impressive from a business standpoint. Why make Trump steaks and water bottles, to get some pocket change? Why ask supporters for $100,000 before the convention? Forbes says $4.5 billion, does that settle the bet? To be fair, no wealthy person can say with any strong degree of certainty exactly how wealthy they are. The more you have, the less clear it is exactly how much you have because the "fair market value" of all your earnings is always in motion. I'd say that Trump is somewhere in the "2 to 10 billion" range for net worth, and that we probably can't do better than that. Yes, there's no definitive objective way to value things without selling them, but the charge that he's not "even" a billionaire was petty when Forbes did a huge investigation, interviewing 80 people, and valued him at well over a billion. And they had him at $1.5 billion 25 years ago, when he owned the airline and third biggest yacht in the world (before having to rebuild), now he owns a 757. Fortune just by doing some math put him around $3.3 billion: http://fortune.com/2016/03/02/donald-trump-tax-returns-income/ - it's like yes, he thinks his brand and name are worth more than they probably are; it's Trump, that's obvious. I think $2-5b is a confident range.
|
Just pointing out that Forbes article is pretty wrong though. Corporate and personal income/ revenue are two entirely different beasts.
|
On June 20 2016 03:51 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2016 03:30 zlefin wrote:On June 20 2016 02:41 LegalLord wrote: I mean, Trump is pretty clearly a highly successful businessman. Everyone who tries to say otherwise purely by virtue of the fact that they don't like him makes the anti-Trump side look like complete morons. He's certainly a famous businessman; it's not claer if he's highly successful or not. moderately successful, sure. and people who say otherwise aren't doing it purely because they hate trump, but because there's a number of indicators that make it unclear how much actual value he has. It's fundamentally unsonud to claim people say otherwise purely because they dislike him. How is being worth 10 billion dollars moderately successful? Even if you take the Forbes 4,5 billion estimate as true that still makes him the 121 richest person in the America according to them. How is being the 121. richest person in the America 'moderately successful'? edit: I feel like I'm rock bottom successful right now  edit2: Yeah, it was a richest people in america list, my bad
Success as a businessman is not measured purely by net worth. If Trump died and left all his wealth to someone picked at random, they would not become an equally successful businessman as he is, right? Or if he got transported to an alternate reality where he had 0 capital and had to start from scratch, he would presumably be just as good a businessman?
There's clearly something else that needs to be considered beyond net worth when evaluating whether someone is highly successful as a businessman. I would say organization and ability to innovate while maximizing market share are just two of those things, for example, and Trump's net worth tells you very little about those attributes. I think he even mentions this on The Apprentice.
I mean, if you were to pick a business advisor-Trump or Romney-would you make your decision purely based on their net worth?
Edit: All this aside, I don't know enough to really classify Trump's abilities as a businessman, but I certainly wouldn't do so purely based on net worth.
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
idk why people are argueing about it, running a business is different then being a president anyway.
|
On June 20 2016 03:51 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2016 03:30 zlefin wrote:On June 20 2016 02:41 LegalLord wrote: I mean, Trump is pretty clearly a highly successful businessman. Everyone who tries to say otherwise purely by virtue of the fact that they don't like him makes the anti-Trump side look like complete morons. He's certainly a famous businessman; it's not claer if he's highly successful or not. moderately successful, sure. and people who say otherwise aren't doing it purely because they hate trump, but because there's a number of indicators that make it unclear how much actual value he has. It's fundamentally unsonud to claim people say otherwise purely because they dislike him. How is being worth 10 billion dollars moderately successful? Even if you take the Forbes 4,5 billion estimate as true that still makes him the 121 richest person in the America according to them. How is being the 121. richest person in the America 'moderately successful'? edit: I feel like I'm rock bottom successful right now  edit2: Yeah, it was a richest people in america list, my bad as others have said, it's not just about the amount of wealth, but on the change in the amount of wealth over time. When someone starts with tons of money and makes some more at only an average level, that's not notably impressive. One might be among the richest in America entirely on inheritance (not saying trump is necessarily, though he did have a lot of help), but that wouldn't qualify you as a successful businessman. There are many estimates of his current wealth, but a lot of uncertainty in those estimates. His acumen as a businessman would depend considerably on what the actual number is; as some wouldn't be impressive at all, while some would be quite solid, though none are truly amazing.
|
Canada11349 Posts
Success as a businessman is not measured purely by net worth. If Trump died and left all his wealth to someone picked at random, they would not become an equally successful businessman as he is, right? I think this is true. Whether you look at Steve Jobs or Simon Cowell, certain names bring value to the business and are sorely missed when they are gone. Or look no further than all those 'how I became wealthy, and you can too' books that are always on the shelf. That's sold largely on his brand (plus the greed factor) doubly so if he uses ghost writers. However, I am suspicious if that value is equal to or greater than the actual assets of the business itself. I don't know what the correct valuation for the entrepreneur is, but I think it ought to be considerably less than the business you created. I don't know if this is true in the case of Trump, but if the lion's share of his net worth is himself, I would call bs.
|
Another Scott Adam's blog + Show Spoiler +Regular readers of this blog know I’m a trained hypnotist. I’ve been studying the ways of persuasion – in all its forms – for decades.
My background in persuasion is the reason I recognized last summer that Trump would exceed most people’s expectations. He was pitch-perfect on persuasion technique. If you don’t study persuasion, Trump’s actions appear random and even dangerous. If you do know how persuasion works, you probably realize Trump is in a league of his own.
You think I’m overstating the case for persuasion. Perhaps you think Trump is doing well for a variety of reasons that include his accurate reading of the Republican base.
But Trump’s accurate reading of the Republican base is part of the art of persuasion. None of what you see in Trump’s election success so far is luck or coincidence. It is technique. If you’re not trained to see it, the method is invisible.
For example, I have already used several persuasion techniques in the paragraphs above. If I were to see another writer use these same persuasion methods on me, I would recognize them. But most of you did not recognize the methods – at least not all of them – when I used them right in front of you.
Persuasion hides in plain sight.
Just for fun, I’ve un-hypnotized several rabid anti-Trumpers lately. It takes less than ten minutes, requires nothing but conversation, and you can probably pull it off just by reading how I did it. Here’s how.
Un-Hypnotizing a Rabid Anti-Trumper
When you encounter a rabid anti-Trumper, ask her what are the biggest concerns of a potential Trump presidency.
If “Supreme Court nominee” is one of the top objections, discontinue your persuasion for ethical reasons. This person has put some thought into the decision and has a legitimate opinion that is at least partly based on reason. I don’t recommend changing that person’s mind.
But if a person’s main objections to Trump include any the following four reasons, I would consider it ethical to apply persuasion.
Objection 1: Trump is a loose cannon who might offend other countries and maybe even start a nuclear war.
Objection 2: Trump is terrible at business because he has several bankruptcies.
Objection 3: Trump is a racist.
Objection 4: Trump is anti-women and anti-LGBT
If any of those four objections are behind an anti-Trumper’s opinion, you have ethical license to persuade, so long as you are sticking to facts and adding context. I’ll show you how to do that with each objection.
Objection 1: Trump is a loose cannon who might offend other countries and maybe even start a nuclear war.
Persuasion: Trump has five decades of acting rational in business dealings, and getting along with people all over the world, including China and Russia. By now you would have heard stories of Trump being a loose cannon in his business dealings if such a thing had happened. We are hearing no stories of that nature. And people don’t suddenly change character at age 70. (That last sentence is the important one.)
How risky is Trump? Consider that Trump has never had an alcoholic beverage. He was against the Iraq war. He doesn’t want boots on the ground in Syria. He wants a strong military to discourage war. Trump personally gains nothing from war, but he has a lot to lose, including every building with his name on it.
Putin already seems to like Trump. They are similar characters in terms of their persuasion talents. And it wouldn’t hurt to be on good terms with Russia while we go after ISIS. Trump seems to have that relationship covered.
Trump has been negotiating with the Chinese for years, with no problems yet. And the Chinese leaders are not children. They got their positions by being great deal-makers, like Trump. They might not want to negotiate against Trump, but they aren’t afraid of his personality type. Trump often tells us that his first bid in any negotiation is super-aggressive. China knows it too. They are not naive. They can tell the difference between a negotiator and a madman. Objection 2: Trump is terrible at business, as proven by his several bankruptcies.
Persuasion: Ask how many bankruptcies Trump has had. Most people say between 5-10. Then ask how many entities Trump has his name on. The answer is about 500. Then ask if that is a good performance for an entrepreneur who is often trying things in new fields.
(Asking questions in that fashion is good persuasion technique. It removes the adversarial frame and gives the person a sense of coming to a new conclusion without pressure.)
Then explain how licensing works. Trump puts his name on various products and he gets paid even if the product or company does poorly in the end. That’s an example of Trump taking the LEAST risk in a deal. The other parties take larger risks and frequently fail. Trump gets paid either way. All parties to the deals have lawyers who review everything. Trump isn’t taking advantage of people with his licensing deals. Licensees are knowingly accepting the riskier side of the deal because they also have the biggest potential upside.
Trump doesn’t like risk. We see it in lots of ways. For example, Trump has never been in a physical fight. He asked his wives to sign prenups. He creates separate entities so some can go bankrupt without bringing down the rest. He licenses his name so he gets paid even if the company buying the license does not make a profit. And he diversifies his portfolio to reduce exposure to any one risk.
Based on everything we see, Trump consistently tries hard to avoid risk in everything he does. And people don’t change character at age 70.
The exceptions to Trump’s risk-avoidance include some of the provocative stuff he is saying during the campaign. That behavior looks risky to most observers, but it was exactly what got him the Republican nomination. Evidently, Trump takes risks when doing so makes sense. Objection 3: Trump is a racist.
Trump has never mentioned race beyond pointing how how many African-Americans and Latinos support him. Ask your anti-Trumper to offer evidence otherwise. Then point out…
Mexico is a country, not a race.
Islam is open to all races.
If the topic of Judge Curiel comes up, point out that all human beings are biased by their life experiences. Ask anti-Trumpers if they think Curiel would be comfortable at his next family gathering if his verdict favors Trump. (Notice the question form of persuasion again.)
Acknowledge that Trump was offensive when he attacked the judge’s parental connections to Mexico. But note that it is also good persuasion and good legal strategy. It puts the judge in the tough spot of either siding with Trump or appearing biased if he does not.
Then point out that only the Democrats are talking about race. And all of that race talk has been divisive. Trump has literally never said a negative thing about race during this election.
(Professional pundits will talk about Trump’s so-called “racist dog-whistles,” but normal voters do not mention it. They don’t know what it means.) Objection 3.1: But Trump wants to discriminate based on religion!
Persuasion: Clarify to the subject of your persuasion that Trump only wants to discriminate against non-citizens. That is literally the job description of a president.
For context, point out that Islam is unique among religions in that it includes an order from God that Muslims should overthrow any government that is not compatible with Islam. Moderate Muslims around the world ignore that part of the religion, but refugees are coming from places where it is considered mandatory.
I don’t think other religions have a mandatory requirement to overthrow the government. So comparisons to other religions are nonsense. And the job of the president includes knowing when to make exceptions.
If you think we can screen Muslim immigrants well enough to stop all of the terrorists and future revolutionaries, just think about any job in which you had coworkers. Remember how incompetent some of them were? Those are the types of people screening immigrants. Does that feel safe to you? Objection 4: Trump is anti-women and anti-LGBT
Persuasion:
Trump is the only candidate calling out Islam for its followers’ views on women and the LGBT community.
Trump wants women to have the right to own guns to protect themselves.
Trump is the only candidate concerned about crimes against women that are perpetrated by illegal immigrants from Mexico.
Trump has a long business record of promoting women to executive positions in his company. He was doing it years before it was fashionable.
The women in his personal life – including his ex-wives – seem to like him.
Trump is offensive in the way he has talked about women. But keep in mind that Trump has offended nearly everyone at some point. The way to know your persuasion is working is that your subject will change the topic instead of addressing your point.
Example:
You: Mexico is not a race.
Subject: Well, Trump also had bankruptcies.
Don’t allow the topic to change. Instead, say again whatever you said just before it did. Make each point about three times, with slightly different wording each time. After the third restatement of your point, without an objection from your subject, allow the topic to change. It means you won.
Let me know how it works out.
—
Note: I endorsed Hillary Clinton for my personal safety, because I live in California. But my political views do not align with any of the candidates for president.
Personally, I would do better under a Clinton presidency. If Clinton gets elected, no one will blame me for anything she does in office. But if Trump wins, my blogging about his persuasion skills will make it look like my fault every time he does something you don’t like. I don’t need that trouble.
Also, as a top one-percenter, I’m winning under the current system. Trump is the only candidate who has the persuasion skills to increase tax rates on the rich, so #imwithher, for selfish reasons.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/146157026376/how-to-un-hypnotize-a-rabid-anti-trumper
|
On June 20 2016 02:10 ticklishmusic wrote: Cruz had a freakishly good data and GOTV operation. It's how he managed to keep limping forward despite his anticipated evangelical base not going for him and being the most hated guy in the Senate. In the zeitgeist of rebellion against the establishment, not chumming it up with the hated elites is a resume enhancer. Trump to some extent made the charge of he's just unlikeable stick. I despise McConnell and Senate leadership. Cruz's fight against them on conservative grounds was a major reason I supported him after Walker petered out. Things would've been quite different if the conservative field wasn't packed from the very beginning.
|
On June 20 2016 06:18 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2016 02:10 ticklishmusic wrote: Cruz had a freakishly good data and GOTV operation. It's how he managed to keep limping forward despite his anticipated evangelical base not going for him and being the most hated guy in the Senate. In the zeitgeist of rebellion against the establishment, not chumming it up with the hated elites is a resume enhanced. Trump to some extent made the charge of he's just unlikeable stick. I despise McConnell and Senate leadership. Cruz's fight against them on conservative grounds was a major reason I supported him after Walker petered out. Things would've been quite different if the conservative field wasn't packed from the very beginning.
The post mortem on Walker seems to be that he hired the wrong people and had a bloated operation that didn't match where he was. And he tried to run in a squishy way, if that makes sense. He didn't run as the hard-fighting governor of a blue state.
Toss in a few gaffs and it was over. But there was a good reason so many (including conservatives) liked him.
Honestly though every "lane" was split. There were at least two people in every GOP category, with the exception of Paul's libertarian slant. It really helped Trump.
|
There's also the fact that Wisconsin is underperforming and in an unfavorable place compared to its chief rival of a neighbor. Not that a governor's impact on his state ought count for much, look at what Kasich did after all
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it is funny that trump can reasonably be seen as both a russian plant and also a clinton plant
|
On June 20 2016 07:18 oneofthem wrote: it is funny that trump can reasonably be seen as both a russian plant and also a clinton plant Obviously Clinton is working with the Russians.
(Didn't someone try to claim that a while back?)
|
|
|
|