The Economist: Donald Trump’s conflicts of interest

[Lafayette]

Donald Trump’s conflicts of interest - excerpt:

The weakness of Trump Inc may pose more of a problem than its sprawl

The self-embellished legend is of a global tycoon. In a kind of mirror image, outraged suspicion is mounting that the Trump Organisation could morph into a vast global network of cronyism. America has been treated to reports of multi-billion dollar projects across the planet, to photos of Mr Trump glad-handing businessmen and to images of exotic, Trump-branded buildings standing like monuments to the decay of American ethics. Paul Krugman, a left-of-centre economist, has suggested that the Trump family could reap $10bn while its patriarch is in office.

Information on the Trump Organisation is mainly limited to Mr Trump’s filings with election monitors. The Economist has aggregated the financial data of 170-odd entities, which were filed in 2015. For some assets the filings only provide a range of values and revenues, so we have added our own estimates and those of third parties.

Start with size. Trump Inc is worth perhaps $4bn, with $490m of annual revenue. Were it listed it would be the 833rd-largest firm in America by market value and 1,925th by sales. Other occupiers of, and contenders for, high political office—including Nelson Rockefeller, Ross Perot, Mitt Romney and Michael Bloomberg—have owned and run more powerful firms.

It seems likely that President Trump will inevitably blur the lines between business and politics in potentially disturbing ways—expect grubby deals and murky meetings. But it is less clear that his firm’s value will soar. With old assets in mature industries, a patchy record, disrupted management and controversies over conflicts of interest, Trump Inc’s value could stagnate or fall. And that, rather than the thrill of fresh billions, could be what really distracts America’s new leader.

The guy is a born 'n bred businessman, and has been since birth - the son of German immigrants. (A hardy stock.)

He will not be able to keep his hands off the business and his kids are too young to run them alone. Managing America from the Oval Office and running Trump enterprises are equally occupying positions. Aside from his "Gotta Be Top-Gun" mentality, it is difficult to imagine why, with his business empire on shaky ground, he took on the presidency as well.

Something has gotta give - and it will ...

 

[Hawkeye10]

Donald Trump’s conflicts of interest - excerpt:


The guy is a born 'n bred businessman, and has been since birth - the son of German immigrants. (A hardy stock.)

He will not be able to keep his hands off the business and his kids are too young to run them alone. Managing America from the Oval Office and running Trump enterprises are equally occupying positions. Aside from his "Gotta Be Top-Gun" mentality, it is difficult to imagine why, with his business empire on shaky ground, he took on the presidency as well.

Something has gotta give - and it will ...

There will be some unhappy people, whether some of them will be in the Trump family IDK.

The law seems to be on Trumps side.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

Paul Krugman, . . .

This is a clue that whatever you're reading belongs in a tabloid. Krugman is the hackiest of hacks.

 

[joG]

Donald Trump’s conflicts of interest - excerpt:


The guy is a born 'n bred businessman, and has been since birth - the son of German immigrants. (A hardy stock.)

He will not be able to keep his hands off the business and his kids are too young to run them alone. Managing America from the Oval Office and running Trump enterprises are equally occupying positions. Aside from his "Gotta Be Top-Gun" mentality, it is difficult to imagine why, with his business empire on shaky ground, he took on the presidency as well.

Something has gotta give - and it will ...

It seems to me a simple and intractable dilemma for democracy. Who can legitimately be elected? Each societal group has its specific problematic.

 

[Crovax]

Donald Trump’s conflicts of interest - excerpt:


The guy is a born 'n bred businessman, and has been since birth - the son of German immigrants. (A hardy stock.)

He will not be able to keep his hands off the business and his kids are too young to run them alone. Managing America from the Oval Office and running Trump enterprises are equally occupying positions. Aside from his "Gotta Be Top-Gun" mentality, it is difficult to imagine why, with his business empire on shaky ground, he took on the presidency as well.

Something has gotta give - and it will ...

What? His oldest 2 sons are 38 and 32 and have been in the Trump business thier whole lives, how are they too young?

 

[Oberon]

I cancelled a subscription to The Economist I've had for 30 years just because of their mis-reporting and lying about Trump, which is exactly the same lies being peddled by the media here. I expected better of their editors, but obviously their standards have fallen through the floor along with the rest of the media's slide downhill into tabloid trash.

 

[Oberon]

It seems to me a simple and intractable dilemma for democracy. Who can legitimately be elected? Each societal group has its specific problematic.

Why not just accept the obvious, and live with the fact that Hillary and Trump, the DNC and RNC, all are indeed representative of what the public has become? They are results of the public wants, not the causes.

 

[KevinKohler]

Why not just accept the obvious, and live with the fact that Hillary and Trump, the DNC and RNC, all are indeed representative of what the public has become? They are results of the public wants, not the causes.

True for Trump, not true for Clinton.

 

[Lafayette]

It seems to me a simple and intractable dilemma for democracy. Who can legitimately be elected? Each societal group has its specific problematic.

This election was specific. It was the first-time a woman was in the running for first-place, which had to happen sooner or later. And the manner in which she was manhandled - particularly by Comey - is unacceptable. (I'm still asking why Dubya never went on trial for his Administration's use of the RNC's email-system.)

Politics as macho hardball ruthlessly diminishes the nation as a whole. Of course, for some, all that matters is hardball "winning".

And THAT is precisely the problem. Nobody won. The majority of the vote went to Hillary, and in just about any advanced country in the world that suffices.

Only in America it does not. We are beset by two political factors that are antiquated - the first being the electoral-college that serves no purpose whatsoever in a true democracy (since only the popular vote matters), and gerrymandering (which dates from 1812) that carves voting districts to favor one or the other of two parties.

The US is a country wedded to dynamic technological change but anchored by an election-reporting system that was bygone already in the 19th century (with the advent of a national electromagnetic telegraph in the 1850s).

That's one too many husbands ...

 

[Lafayette]

It seems to me a simple and intractable dilemma for democracy. Who can legitimately be elected? Each societal group has its specific problematic.

The majority of the popular vote always wins, in most democracies.

But not ours ...

 

[Oberon]

We don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic, and it is by no means proven that Hillary won the popular vote, for a variety of reasons, including many states not having the slightest interest in voters proving they are eligible or even citizens, so that isn't an argument, it's a fantasy wish.

 

[Oberon]

True for Trump, not true for Clinton.

It's true for any nominee in an election here, no matter what the office, dog catcher to President.

 

[Bob N]

...and it is by no means proven that Hillary won the popular vote, for a variety of reasons, including many states not having the slightest interest in voters proving they are eligible or even citizens, so that isn't an argument, it's a fantasy wish.

Clinton's popular vote lead passes the 2 million mark And if I may ask, which states do you suspect and why?

 

[KevinKohler]

It's true for any nominee in an election here, no matter what the office, dog catcher to President.

Not true for those that lose elections, is what I mean.

 

[Oberon]

Not true for those that lose elections, is what I mean.

Ah, okay; I didn't get it the first time.

 

[Oberon]

Clinton's popular vote lead passes the 2 million mark And if I may ask, which states do you suspect and why?

New York, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, California, Oregon, Florida, and any other state where Democrats control the state and/or large city governments therein, including some cities here in Texas. Why? Why do Democrats oppose Voter ID laws anywhere?

And we can deduct several millions of votes from the hillary totals due to fraud.

 

[Bob N]

New York, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, California, Oregon, Florida, and any other state where Democrats control the state and/or large city governments therein, including some cities here in Texas. Why?

Well I do not totally agree with your train of thought. But lets discuss some of what you say which I can question. The states of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida went for Trump. (Ohio 52.1%; Pennsylvania 48.8%; Florida 49.1%.) Really. I think that you're giving the state and locals more credit than they deserve. Those figures are not in disregard by no means. (LINK)

Why do Democrats oppose Voter ID laws anywhere?

I seriously suspect it to be the same reason that the GOP wants to close down registration centers and polling places early in sectors they control. Power. Something, is it not? I have no problem showing ID to the poll worker. If it was up to me voters in all states should be able to vote as early as two months before an election with no lines because there are plenty of access points to vote right up until November 8th. :shrug:

And we can deduct several millions of votes from the hillary totals due to fraud.

Go right ahead. Just as long as the other side gets them subtracted too if they are found to be fraudulent. :shrug:

 

[joG]

Why not just accept the obvious, and live with the fact that Hillary and Trump, the DNC and RNC, all are indeed representative of what the public has become? They are results of the public wants, not the causes.

what?

 

[joG]

This election was specific. It was the first-time a woman was in the running for first-place, which had to happen sooner or later. And the manner in which she was manhandled - particularly by Comey - is unacceptable. (I'm still asking why Dubya never went on trial for his Administration's use of the RNC's email-system.)

Politics as macho hardball ruthlessly diminishes the nation as a whole. Of course, for some, all that matters is hardball "winning".

And THAT is precisely the problem. Nobody won. The majority of the vote went to Hillary, and in just about any advanced country in the world that suffices.

Only in America it does not. We are beset by two political factors that are antiquated - the first being the electoral-college that serves no purpose whatsoever in a true democracy (since only the popular vote matters), and gerrymandering (which dates from 1812) that carves voting districts to favor one or the other of two parties.

The US is a country wedded to dynamic technological change but anchored by an election-reporting system that was bygone already in the 19th century (with the advent of a national electromagnetic telegraph in the 1850s).

That's one too many husbands ...

You seem to have a grasp of political, sociological and economic models of decision making, what they imply, their interaction or their advantages vs disadvantages for different groups, over time or for stability that is as thick as a leaf.

 

[Lafayette]

RUBBISH SLOGANIZING

We don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic, and it is by no means proven that Hillary won the popular vote, for a variety of reasons, including many states not having the slightest interest in voters proving they are eligible or even citizens, so that isn't an argument, it's a fantasy wish.

Babble, babble, babble.

The vote was counted and all that matters is those who voted, presuming the votes counted where honest and without external interference. You don't like the supposed facts of the matter, that's too bad. Let's see what investigators find, and if there was no finagling or interference then so much the better for our voting-system. Which is ancient and creaky.

America's "democracy" is typical of American business - it has been manhandled in such a way to influence political opinion by means of the BoobTube that eats most of the budget of an electoral campaign. The problem is, I suggest, that Americans are affected greatly by the publicity.

What's important is a politician's "platform" - meaning, what they "stand" for in terms of political outlook or thinking on matters. And, as regards the matter of "platforms" - in the context of this last election - I gave Hillary an "A" and Trump a "D-".

Trump was all over the place and his "Make America Great Again" was just rubbish BoobTube sloganizing. The hard-part boyz-'n-girlz is in contending with intractable problems and finding solutions that do not suit everybody but solve nonetheless problems. (The biggest of which at the moment in America is both Income & Wealth Disparity!)

Because, instead of thinking, people actually believe the soap-powder boobtube merchandizing of candidates - who all "wash whiter than white!"

Stoopid is as stoopid does. (Forrest Gump)

 

[Bobbaker]

I cancelled a subscription to The Economist I've had for 30 years just because of their mis-reporting and lying about Trump, which is exactly the same lies being peddled by the media here. I expected better of their editors, but obviously their standards have fallen through the floor along with the rest of the media's slide downhill into tabloid trash.

The only thing the MSM got wrong was relying on wrong polls, and as a result, they did not investigate certain things as much as they would have.

Since 95% of the polls were wrong, the MSM can be exonnerated on that account. They are not pollsters.

That said, they are idiots not to doublecheck things. This does not make them tabloid trash. All the other facts they reported were TRUE, and their opinions flowing from the concatenation of those facts, were entirely reasonable.




They just would not have spent as much time in bashing trump if they had realised the election was so close/she was losing, in the battleground states. They would have spent more time investigating why Trump's message was working.