Nicholas Nassim Taleb writes this about Trump in his new book:After all, he's best at shooting himself in the foot and making things worse for him. — ssu
When I saw Donald Trump in the Republican primary standing next to the other candidates,
I became certain he was going to win that stage of the process, no matter what he said or did. Actually, it was because he had visible deficiencies. Why? Because he was real, and the public - composed of people who usually take risks, not the lifeless non-risk-taking analysts [...] The detractors of Donald Trump, when he was still a candidate, not only misunderstood the value of scars as risk signaling, but they also failed to realize that, by advertising his episode of bankruptcy and his personal losses of close to a billion dollars, he removed the resentment (the second type of inequality) people may have had toward him. There is something respectable in losing a billion dollars, provided it is your own money.
Moving back to Trump, what do people think of his tariffs on Steel and Aluminium Tariffs?
The President desperately wants to shore up his support with Rust Belt voters who voted for him based on his promise to fight for their jobs. This has become especially important as his support is now, as Axios noted, falling with nearly all demographic groups, including those who backed him until now.
Oh I agree with this one. After all, he just focuses on his base as he (perhaps correctly) understands he has absolutely no way to get new supporters. And it's only about the perception what his actions give, not the actual outcome to the economy.Reelection move. It gives him a helluva talking point in the Rust Belt which he must win. — Cavacava
No, those "who know more about the economy" are the leeches who make money by being money changers, speculators, etc. I have almost zero respect for such people. Whenever I see someone making a lot of money out of working a job actually - I don't respect that person, because they don't deserve the money, they don't take risk. The entrepreneurs, not the analysts and speculators, should run the economy.No. Say the people who know more about economics than the hillbillies who think that Trump is on their side. — CuddlyHedgehog
No, I disagree. Local industries have to be protected, and access to finance needs to be made much easier than it is for local entrepreneurs. Banking should be nationalised, there should be no "for-profit" money changing. That is a monstrosity.Protectionism is bad for the economy as a whole. And guess who is going to get hurt first and foremost >>> the entrepreneurs! — CuddlyHedgehog
Well Agustino, entrepreneurs do run the economy.The entrepreneurs, not the analysts and speculators, should run the economy. — Agustino
No, they don't. Entrepreneurs are finding it harder and harder to take decisions on their own, and more and more they have to be at the mercy of boards of directors, investors, politicians etc. It would be good if the entrepreneurs actually ran the economy.Well Agustino, entrepreneurs do run the economy. — ssu
Well, people are usually driven to growing - that's what most entrepreneurs intend to do anyway. So even if it might not happen in the short-term, I see no reason not to expect it sooner or later.The industry typically just takes the tariffs/subsidies etc. as a given and doesn't do anything to improve it's situation. Why should it, if it's protected? — ssu
Sure, after years of barely making an income, I think we can afford to let the entrepreneurs bank a little dough home for awhile. There are many entrepreneurs out there who are persistently, sometimes for many years, barely surviving, and some of them even run quite large companies.In the end, if you just want to pay more for having an uncompetitive industry that actually doesn't deliver, well, then why not.
You shouldn't increase taxes on the rich just because they're rich. That's also not fair, because some people deserve to be rich.Yeah, count on Trump to increase taxes on the rich. — CuddlyHedgehog
He lost more than a billion dollars and remade it - he is an entrepreneur.Trump is not an entrepreneur. He inherited his fortune from his family and he screwed up several times, declaring himself bankrupt and dodging paying his debts and taxes. Now he is screwing up the whole country and the rest of the world with it. — CuddlyHedgehog
In March 2002, President George W. Bush imposed a 30% tariff on Chinese steel. The results were chaotic. In a report put out by Consuming Industries Trade Action Coalition in February of that year, the coalition found the tariffs against China boosted the overall prices of steel and cost the U.S. 200,000 jobs in businesses that buy steel, representing $4 billion.
...in September 2009, President Obama imposed a three-year tariff on car tires from China. Chinese imports went down, but the tires were simply sourced from other countries, the LA Times noted. According to the Peterson Institute for International Economics, 1,200 tire jobs were saved in the U.S., but through costs passed along to American consumers, 2,500 jobs were lost indirectly.
That simply doesn't work. It has been proven again and again. And it basically goes against the whole idea of entrepreneurship. If you take a risk, you should get also bigger profit for it (if things go well) than not taking the risk. Money has to have a price. Heck, if I lend to the bank my money, I ought to get an interest on it.Banking should be nationalised, there should be no "for-profit" money changing. — Agustino
You don't understand my point. They do run the thing. It's they who create jobs, make new industries and are crucial to the health of the economy.No, they don't. Entrepreneurs are finding it harder and harder to take decisions on their own, and more and more they have to be at the mercy of boards of directors, investors, politicians etc. It would be good if the entrepreneurs actually ran the economy. — Agustino
No it hasn't. Only nationalising the whole economy doesn't work. I didn't recommend that we do that.That simply doesn't work. It has been proven again and again — ssu
Yes, you should - but not as a sleazy banker who doesn't produce anything and just watches money pour in. That's not "risk-taking". When the bank offers you a loan on terms that 99% of possible scenarios they win - that's not right, that's theft.And it basically goes against the whole idea of entrepreneurship. If you take a risk, you should get also bigger profit for it (if things go well) than not taking the risk. Money has to have a price. — ssu
In some cases that is already done - roads, the military, many natural resources etc. - doesn't seem to be a problem in those cases. Banking should be one of those industries, since making profits out of banking is ridiculous - nothing gets produced by bankers.The most idiotic idea ever is to think that you can replace the market mechanism with a government bureacrat. Because that is what you are saying. (Just as, well, the central banks do now for the money markets). — ssu
Sure, that's not what I suggested.What I'm sick and tired of is the ludicrous idea that either the economy should totally be EITHER under government control or that there ought to be no government involvement in the markets whatsoever. And if those would be the only options. — ssu
What is your reasoning?Banking should be one of those industries, since making profits out of banking is ridiculous - nothing gets produced by bankers. — Agustino
Trump can't be responsible for the condition the US is in today - he was barely President for one year. Blame your other ex-Presidents like Clinton, Bush, Obama - all of them terrible.Oh, so you are talking from a place of safety. You should be living the "dream" most Americans do today and I would like to see how fond of the orange imbecile you would be then. — CuddlyHedgehog
But Trump is responsible for the actions he takes and those he doesn't (as not doing anything does have consequences too) when in charge.Trump can't be responsible for the condition the US is in today — Agustino
1. Banking is not productive - bankers don't produce anything or add any value. Ideally, banking should facilitate the development of industries by providing access to capital. This shouldn't be done SOLELY with the profit motive - a business may not be able to earn great profits at first, but it may be, for social reasons for example, necessary - it should still get funding.What is your reasoning? — ssu
Yeah, a service where the banker pretty much cannot lose.Basic banking is a service just as anything: — ssu
If the loans can't be paid back, not a problem. Seize his house, seize his assets, why do you care? You may have some logistical issues selling those assets, so you just bunch them together, and sell them all at once at some discount and make your money back. No wonder - bankers usually make terrible administrators.And if those loans given out cannot be paid back by the people who took the loans, the banker ought to lose his job. — ssu
You don't need to know, because it's simply set up that you pretty much cannot lose. When you propose conditions for a mortgage for a property investment and give me a variable interest rate based on a reference rate + 1-2% - while that reference rate usually ends up somewhat higher than inflation anyway at least for the foreseeable future, AND force me to guarantee with the property, then you pretty much cannot lose. In fact, I calculated it for one such case - the scenarios in which the bank really loses are basically non-existent. Whereas I will be a slave to you for quite a few years if I fail to pay you the capital. Those aren't fair conditions, they are abusive, and discourage entrepreneurial activity.Who the hell do I know to which barber or car mechanic can pay his loans or not? — ssu
Yeah, a service where the banker pretty much cannot lose. — Agustino
You get very reckless banks precisely because the social classes I was talking about have already formed. They insulate themselves from the risks, while accumulating more and more rewards. They don't care about the risks - whatever happens, for the most part, they will manage. They just set out the game that way - and if things really go bad, go beg a little to politicians and they'll save you even then.The problem (which you likely know) is that that in the present systems the risks and rewards don't go hand in hand and hence you have had very reckless banks. — ssu
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.