Hacker News Reader

> Art of the Deal

The ghostwriter of that book says he made the whole thing up, because Trump got bored so quickly he wouldn't sit for an interview longer than 10 minutes.

Regardless of whether or not his ghostwriter is telling the truth, Trump didn't need to write it in order to follow the book's advice.

If you look at what the book talks about and you see how Trump acts, there are many similarities.

> $40,000,000 (Trump's share of his father's fortune) invested in the market in 1974 would be worth $1.22 billion in 2015 (when he announced his campaign).

How did you get that number? Did you include re-invested dividends?

If you start in October 1974 and end in June 2015, you get a return of 9817.096% with dividends reinvested and only 2923.171% without [1]. So starting with $40 million you would end up closer to $4 billion. Admittedly that is after fiddling with the months to maximise the return.

> Compared to Forbes estimate of his net worth at $4.5 billion ...

There is a good chance that the $4.5 billion Forbes estimate is a significant overestimation. There is no downside for Forbes to overestimating his fortune, but a significant one in underestimating: they risk getting sued by Trump. See [2], on how he lost a lawsuit in 2006 when a journalist claimed that he was only worth $250 million. It also contains examples of how Trump inflates his net worth. The fact that he still hasn't released his tax returns and has no plans to do so, also speaks volumes.

> ...and Trump's own estimate of his net worth at $10.0 billion at the same date.

Given his long history of lying his own claim is useless.

[1] https://dqydj.com/sp-500-return-calculator/

[2] http://www.forbes.com/sites/chasewithorn/2016/03/31/how-dona...

> How did you get that number? Did you include re-invested dividends?

From the site I linked to above (which incidentally is the site [1] you linked to in your post). It includes re-invested dividends and also taxes, which were significantly higher in the late 70's and early 80's compared to what they are now. The page I linked to goes through their methodology.

You make good points about his net worth, but even if I was to concede that, I believe my main point still stands.

He might not be an astute investor, but even if his entire businesses are only worth hundreds of millions, you can't run a company of that size for so long if you "lack intelligence" - even more so if you're building it back up after losing a billion dollars a few decades earlier.

> From the site I linked to above (which incidentally is the site [1] you linked to in your post). It includes re-invested dividends and also taxes, which were significantly higher in the late 70's and early 80's compared to what they are now. The page I linked to goes through their methodology.

I missed that link. It makes some good points. Of course, if you had $200 million in 1974, and your marginal tax rate was 75%, you would not hold it in person but would shield it in a corporation. I'm sure his tax lawyer would have found some structure that would have brought down his taxes significantly.

> you can't run a company of that size for so long if you "lack intelligence"

He is not a complete moron, but he is far from a brilliant businessman. And he doesn't seem to have many intelligent insights outside of business.

He is good at selling an image that appeals to a lot of Americans, though.

> even more so if you're building it back up after losing a billion dollars a few decades earlier.

How do you lose a billion dollars? Does that take a special kind of intelligence? Or does it maybe indicate that he takes irresponsible risks that sometimes pay off, but sometimes go horribly wrong? Could his relative success be explained by survivorship bias?

> but he is far from a brilliant businessman.

I'm not claiming he is a brilliant businessman. I'm only disputing the assertion that he "lacks intelligence", which is what started this side-thread.

> How do you lose a billion dollars?

Many different ways. For example, Hillary spent over a billion dollars on her losing campaign, but I don't assume that Hillary lacks intelligence because of this.

> Could his relative success be explained by survivorship bias?

It could well be, and again I'm not ascribing any sort of "special intelligence" to Trump, just that I don't agree that he "lacks intelligence".

> Hillary spent

Not her personal wealth

Well, how about this one then: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-12/soros-los...

Losing a billion dollars is easier than you think, because even if you're intelligent, sometimes circumstances conspire against you.

> figures based on Forbes estimate of his net worth.

You know Forbes is just a business magazine, and just a small one at that?

They don't have any privileged information. They probably just based their reporting on his self-reported wealth. At best they could look at the public valuations of some of his properties, but since the Trump organization is privately held they have no way of knowing how badly he's leveraged.

Here's a hint: check how much Forbes said Elizabeth Holmes was worth in 2015.

> I don't know about that. From what I can tell, he seems to consistently follow the same or similar playbook outlined in 'The Art of the Deal'.

That you don't see the difference between a set of strategies for making money in real estate and a governing philosophy of how you see the world and act as a person is the crux of the problem.

> That you don't see the difference ... is the crux of the problem.

I'm simply pointing out observable reality.

'Art of the Deal' may just be a set of strategies for making money in real estate, but those same strategies seem to guide how he sees the world and acts as a person.

I'm not making any judgement about whether that is a good or bad thing, but failing to understand that means failing to understand Trump.

This is the Art of the Deal:

  1. Think big
  2. Protect the downside and the upside will take care of itself
  3. Maximize your options
  4. Know your market
  5. Use your leverage
  6. Enhance your location
  7. Get the word out
  8. Fight back
  9. Deliver the goods
  10. Contain the costs
  11. Have fun

Aside from the last one, these are simply statements of strategy on how to achieve your goals. This is not a framework for arriving at the goals themselves. You could use this strategy to work for autocracy or democracy or really any world you want. The first question to ask is which world you want to live in, not how to get there.

His only statements on normative, not positive, values come from things like "America winning" and "being great" and "going back." But it absolutely true that, for many Americans, these are a contradiction in terms.

I can attempt to infer his values from these vague statements, but I think that it is improper for a leader to not start with a set of first principles, independent from ill-defined notions like "winning", that guide what it means to win and what it means to be great.

> I can attempt to infer his values from these vague statements,

Well, there's a whole book that goes in to specific details about those vague statements, so you don't have to infer much at all about what he means by them.

Much of the crazy, and supposedly unpredictable things Trump does, follows the playbook laid out by Art of the Deal. He's been following the same script for decades, and people are somehow surprised when he keeps doing the same thing.

> but I think that it is improper

I'm not commenting on the propriety or value of Trump doing this, just pointing out that he does do it (whether others think it improper or not).

Love him or hate him, if you want to understand him, the Art of Deal provides insight on that.

By "vague statements" I was referring to his comments on "America winning" or "being great again." Does Art of the Deal describe those statements in detail?

It does!

Well, not those statements specifically, it describes that type of statement and Trump's rationale for using them.

Here's a quote -

"The final key to the way I promote is bravado. I play to people’s fantasies. People may not always think big themselves, but they can still get very excited by those who do. That’s why a little hyperbole never hurts. People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular.

I call it truthful hyperbole. It’s an innocent form of exaggeration — and a very effective form of promotion."

So, it's a promotion tactic to get people thinking positive and thinking big, but also, the vagueness means that each person can attribute it to whatever is important to them, which leads to much stronger engagement and emotional connection.

Once again, I think that's more of a statement on how he achieves his goals, not how he arrives at goals in the first place.

For instance, there's an inherent conflict between freedom and security. The government and the people must strike a balance on these issues. How does Trump decide what the right balance is? What philosophical principles does he use to decide how much freedom we should be willing to trade for security?