Donald Trump

"

NeroNoah wrote:

"

tr1gg3r3d wrote:

"

NeroNoah wrote:

I don't trust him to solve anything about trade.

how come u don't trust someone with trade, who basically spent his whole life with trading pretty succesfully? I mean going from 1 million$ loan to 10$billion company seems pretty impressive to me.

Winning money and knowing about macroeconomics are not the same thing. Hell, some hedge fund managers are ignorant as fuck.

I'm not sure ignorance is a prerequisite for continually making billions of dollars in profits. Out of curiosity, how many of the "ignorant" hedge fund managers you are thinking of are personally financially destitute?

"

DalaiLama wrote:

I'm not sure ignorance is a prerequisite for continually making billions of dollars in profits. Out of curiosity, how many of the "ignorant" hedge fund managers you are thinking of are personally financially destitute?

You are reading it bad. I'm not saying that ignorance is a prerequisite. I just say that the knowledge to earn money is not the same that knowledge in economics. I've heard some Hedge Fund managers talking about seeing hyperinflation in a world where deflation (bah, little to no inflation) is fairly common.

Trump being a bussinessman doesn't make him adequate to modify trade deals. Just good at being a bussinessman, in the same way a master trader in PoE wouldn't necessarily be the best at designing new orbs and managing the economy (that'd be GGG, even if they fail a lot).

"

NeroNoah wrote:

Trump being a bussinessman doesn't make him adequate to modify trade deals.

partly true, but from the candidates u have running it still makes him the most adequate to do so.
also i would not compare hedge fund to real estate construction.


By the way i believe trade deals are the less important at this point in terms of global stability.
The world is a ticking nuke bomb. Global power is shifting to the EAst with the rise of China and just wait a few years until a Russian-Chinese Full scale millitary alliance will emerge and the West will be in big trouble.

The last 15 years of failed US foreign policy is now destabilizing Europe and if Eu gets destabilized the US will loose it's most relevant ally and then Russia& Chine will probably totally take over.

the first smart step would be to finally cease ALL U.S support to islamic terrorists and supporters of islamic terrorists in mid-east.

"

They were negotiating from a position of strength. They had two things the international community wanted - vast amounts of oil and money. Without those two strengths, they would still be languishing under sanctions.

sorry to pull out a just a piece Dalai. But I have to disagree about what strengths Iran had in these negotiations. You are right about oil, but the real strength is their positional sphere of influence in the region that is becoming more and more conflicted. The ability to inhibit land travel(and air space) from asia to the area in conjunction with turkey's control of the Bosporus Strait (maybe not current name) and Dardanelles Strait, forces Russia to come to the table or try to take a big bite out of the world.

Iran's economy was in shambles due to long held sanctions, so if you mean money by market potential for foreign companies, then ok, I will concede the point, but if you mean liquid assets which would be defined in terms of money controlled by the sanctioning powers, I am going to have to disagree.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

"

Raycheetah wrote:

For those who don't get the contrast between lions and lambs, I offer another quote:

"

It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!

Perhaps that will clarify the sentiment. ='[.]'=

You don't get it. That kind of thought can make life hell. Think of Theon Greyjoy, and how his wish to live "like a lion" ended...The life of iron and salt sucks.

Also, think of Lucifer in John Milton's Paradise Lost ("Better to reign in Hell than to serve in Heaven").

It's not one pride, one's actions can affect other people. Some times is better to be humilliated rather than bring death and suffering to many people. Sometimes is better to be on your knees.

So, Frederick Douglass was wrong?

"

Better even die free, than to live slaves.

And you quote a Game of Thrones character? I think you don't get it. ='[.]'=

We are not discussing freedom. We are discussing the uses of strength. That's the meaning of that phrase, it was not about freedom at all. A lamb can be free. A lion can be captive. The difference between a lion and a lamb is that one is predator and the other one prey. It's the use of violence.

Also, I don't see a problem with quoting GoT.

If you wish better literature, try with something like the Bible. The whole point of that story (even if you don't believe on it) is about the sacrifice of Jesus (symbolized by a lamb) to save the whole humanity. The messiah has that duality between the lion of Judah and the lamb of God in the whole text. It's fairly interesting. To prefer to die as a lamb rather than to live as a lion...that's impressive!

Sometimes is better to not use strength at all (see Gandhi or MLK) even if that means risking your life or freedom.

The right decision tends to not be evident generally. Thanks God we are not lamb nor lions, and we can break from the shackles of violence!

"

NeroNoah wrote:

"

DalaiLama wrote:

I'm not sure ignorance is a prerequisite for continually making billions of dollars in profits. Out of curiosity, how many of the "ignorant" hedge fund managers you are thinking of are personally financially destitute?

You are reading it bad. I'm not saying that ignorance is a prerequisite. I just say that the knowledge to earn money is not the same that knowledge in economics.

Agreed, to a degree. The hedge fund managers are concerned with one or two aspects - money for themselves, and maybe even the success of the fund. The fund managers are gaming a system that everyone is terrified to even suggest fixing. The taxing structure on investing is meant to reward new development and more extended development, but it is gamed for every angle possible.

Fixing it would drive some very good results for everyone. Breaking it in a bad attempt to fix it would cause horrible problems.

Any leader with some actual background in running a business (small or large) will be leaps and bounds ahead of someone with a purely academic background in economics. Someone with both has a better grasp of many issues facing a nation. Grasping the full economic situation of a global economy isn't a one person job in any case, no matter how much expertise. Trump does have a good background for this aspect of the presidency. Whether he picks good advisers and brokers good deals with congress and internationally is a different factor required for that aspect of the job. Again, his background, gives him a better chance to know what a good deal looks like and feels like, than someone without the experience.

"

LostForm wrote:

"

They were negotiating from a position of strength. They had two things the international community wanted - vast amounts of oil and money. Without those two strengths, they would still be languishing under sanctions.

sorry to pull out a just a piece Dalai. But I have to disagree about what strengths Iran had in these negotiations. You are right about oil, but the real strength is their positional sphere of influence in the region that is becoming more and more conflicted. The ability to inhibit land travel(and air space) from asia to the area in conjunction with turkey's control of the Bosporus Strait (maybe not current name) and Dardanelles Strait, forces Russia to come to the table or try to take a big bite out of the world.

Iran's economy was in shambles due to long held sanctions, so if you mean money by market potential for foreign companies, then ok, I will concede the point, but if you mean liquid assets which would be defined in terms of money controlled by the sanctioning powers, I am going to have to disagree.

You are absolutely correct that their geographical location is also a HUGE factor. The USSR didn't battle in Afghanistan for as long as it did for any other reasons than logistics.

Agreed again on the finances. The market potential was the same reason Nixon was so eager to arrange relations with China. We can see some of the huge deals coming out of Iran already. The deals with China alone in the last month are roughly estimated at ~600 Billion dollars. The Iranian cash released from frozen accounts probably isn't much over 100 Billion dollars, but with good investments, that's worth a half Trillion dollars in future trade.

Episode 19 of You Can't Stump the Trump is out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiG-598DriE

"

DalaiLama wrote:

Any leader with some actual background in running a business (small or large) will be leaps and bounds ahead of someone with a purely academic background in economics. Someone with both has a better grasp of many issues facing a nation. Grasping the full economic situation of a global economy isn't a one person job in any case, no matter how much expertise. Trump does have a good background for this aspect of the presidency. Whether he picks good advisers and brokers good deals with congress and internationally is a different factor required for that aspect of the job. Again, his background, gives him a better chance to know what a good deal looks like and feels like, than someone without the experience.

Nope. See the last Bush, he should be enough of a lesson, he had a bussiness background. You can't run a country like a bussiness. A single bussiness and a whole economy require different strategies, sometimes they do contradict. Also, a lot of bussinessmen have been trained to be amoral for all practical purposes (that's like some kind of open secret at this point). One doesn't want that kind of person there. Trump is just inflating his reputation with the whole deal thing. It'll be hilarious to see him talk with, let's say, Putin, so they have a flex competition or something to determine who is in a position of strength to negotiate. Most of the world already hates him (Bush flashbacks, anyone? Everyone seemed to hate him at some point). He will not broke deals, he will insult other people that will be more intelligent than puny republican presidential candidates (that's long hanging fruit).

Also, a lot of economists end working in banks and other places. They are empiricists, they don't live in an ivory tower. I seriously prefer them to a bussinessman.