> the thought has always been that the president was using a high leverage negotiating strategy
Whose thought? The people who didn't know that trump was an incompetent nutjob?
Whose thought? The people who didn't know that trump was an incompetent nutjob?
I think it's more correct to say that people are realizing that the old order under the president is gradually eroding and its moderating effects are weakening, which adds compounding risks (directly in the trade war stuff but also hidden ones that may be lurking as that erratic behavior starts more directly impacting all aspects of US policy).
Instead of using "Deep State", it might be better to say "Agency Directors", if you wanted to use neutral language. "Deep State" is loaded. Of course, its more popular these days to value-signal which side of an argument you're on, rather than appearing neutral...
In any effect, the people who use the word "Deep State" wish to imply that government workers have their own agendas. In my experience however, government workers overwhelmingly just want to do a good job with the task they've been assigned (much like any other human who are tasked with a job).
It’s a pipeline and someone has their hands on the valves.
For instance, in Washington DC there is certainly a pipeline from public to private to high level to lobbying to etc., but I think what the +parent posters is referring to encompasses the scientists at the EPA and the USDA, the doctors and nurses and managers at the VA, etc etc. They tend to get a job there after a bit of moving around and then stay 40 years. There is no trading out to private sector -- they generally get a gov't job because of a combined desire for altruism and good benefits and stability -- and the vast majority would never even be offered, much less accept, a lobbying position.
Source: family in such positions, who just want to examine and regulate the wastewater output of cheese factories in the heartland and go home after a good day's work. Said member was forced out of their job recently due to politics -- not "business-friendly" enough.
Now you’re replying to me about high-level HR decisions biasing the processes of government agencies. I don’t think there is anything to elaborate?
I think the OPs point was “deep state” has a deliberate, highly charged, negative connotation.
Don’t conflate the horrible reality of racism with the historical origin of a racial insult. The OP is merely using it as an example to illustrate how terms acquire meaning through time and social norms. Not excuse their existence.
My point is that words have meaning based on who uses the word. The N-word is used by racists and is now avoided by polite society (unless you wish to explicitly label yourself a racist)
"Deep State" is used by conspiracy theorists who wish to destroy government workers and their positions. Its a phrase that should be avoided unless you wish to paint yourself a conspiracy theorist.
Similarly, any unelected bureaucrat working in the executive branch that pursues their personal agenda or tries to slow progress on the plans of the duly elected executive is de facto going against said will of the people.
That is cognitive dissonance of the highest order.
The trade war is one such blunder that no responsible and informed person thought would do any good long term but was spun as a hard core negotiation tactic. Tariffs are import taxes charged mostly to residents and businesses in the home country or passed to the consumer by the importing firm. This short term harms everyone but could be the straw that pushes a close deal to be ratified. Unfortunately, we didn't have a close deal beyond the TPP and this wasn't a cooperative negotiation but one of necessity framed as USA vs China.
It was never a smart move and was recommended against by nearly all experts or those with experience in the matter and we have reached the logical conclusion of such policies to find that there is no deep state outside of conspiracy forums and our economic outlook and foreign policy is a dumpster fire as Trump is not rational but likely narcissistic and mislead or misinformed by his staff to ignore reality such as the looming economic crisis.
If you're a civil servant in a department, you've worked there for years, you know why things are done the way they are, you know the pitfalls and the edge cases, you know the stake holders etc, etc, etc.
Some politician gets elected on a pledge to, eg, change the side of the road people drive on. Simple right? Set a date for next month as the switch over date, send a letter telling everyone, simple.
Except lane markings need changing, signs need changing, and most of those aren't directly under your control. Insurers are up in arms because all the cars are set up for driving on one side of the road. Some disability group is sueing because a proper safety study wasn't done, engineers can't guarantee that going on the off ramps and off the on ramps is safe, because they were never designed for that and theres 10000 other assumptions that were made on the basis of driving on one side of the road that are now invalidated, and its your job to point that out to your new boss.
Someone who is part of the supposed DC government told me straight up that he is a lunatic.
Dismissing it as a thing and calling it plain ole bureaucracy is quite a naive worldview.
You're right - I was responding to an imagined position in an unrelated / irrelevant political context, whereas a more careful reading makes it clear what we're discussing here is the moderating effects of bureaucracy.
My apologies for adding noise instead of considering contributions more carefully!
Yes, the US president is an economic imbecile, but $50 billion dollars in tariffs is a drop in the ocean of the $100 trillion global bond market.
This is a much, much bigger deal than US politics or a US trade war.
Interest rates are negative on $15 trillion worth of debt. All German government bonds have negative rates, all the way out to 30 years.
Policymakers don't like to say the word "deflation" out loud, because even talking about it could make it happen.
But when the economy softens, and central banks have no more ammunition left to stimulate the economy, deflation could be the terrifying result.
Negative long-term rates are what you would expect in a deflationary economy. And, yes, you can have a deflationary economy even while some prices are increasing.
5 U.S. Code § 2101. Civil service; armed forces; uniformed services
Or "the normative power of the factual".
The deep state AKA someone watched Yes, Minister and wrote an American adaptation.
Especially if you observe inertia and radical changes by the White House ending up moderated. That's by design and it's in the Constitution... and it's called "checks and balances".
Those who were fooled, were fooled because they chose to be.
If he could have been richer by not being bankrupt then that would indicate competence to me.
Also daddy gave him $435 million IIRC. If everyone on HN had got that I suspect most of us would have done better.
In general, I agree with you.
There's a good Planet Money podcast on it as well: https://www.npr.org/2019/05/22/725893104/episode-914-trump-a...
It is also why the Trump family has preemptively sued Deutsche bank in an attempt to seal records and obstruct any investigation.
I imagine he will get rich even if U.S. goes through a bankrupcy.
Much of what he has left was gotten by repeatedly breaking the law, and somehow only ending up with civil liability instead of criminal convictions.
Now he is actively wrecking the US economy and has somehow bullied the GOP into going along with it.
He made money by burning other people and companies, but he came out quite well from it.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Random_Walk_Down_Wall_Street
Bogle started Vanguard in 1975:
"If you want to be a Millionaire, start with a billion dollars and launch a new airline." -- https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Branson
If you start with a lot you can deplete much of it before you have only a little.
> ... usually, every investment property should be owned by a separate limited liability company that owns only one property and that is not engaged in any other business activity. The reason is simple: to maximize asset protection.
https://www.keytlaw.com/azllclaw/asset-protection/how-many-l...
And you really shouldn't go throwing around spurious accusations like that without any evidence.
So which is it? He started 500 businesses, or he has a few businesses that are made up of multiple properties.
I have friends with a few dozen rental properties, all in separate LLCs. I wouldn't say they "started 50 businesses".
So with your wording you should say Trump owned 500 properties and 6 of them lost money. And like any real estate investor, when the properties lost money, Trump gave those 6 properties to the creditors.
But I think my wording is more accurate. Your friend's rental properties may not be individual businesses, but Trump Tower or the Taj Mahal are.
The vast majority of his businesses have no customers, and no regular income. They aren't intended to make a profit--they're intended to protect an asset from the bankruptcy of his real businesses. There was never any chance that they would need to go bankrupt, so he gets no credit for them not going bankrupt.
Where do you get this? Is this just more BS with no evidence, like the money laundering accusation?
I haven't seen a complete list, but even Wikipedia has a list with a lot of businesses:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trump_Organization
> they're intended to protect an asset from the bankruptcy of his real businesses
Even if you were right about Trump's businesses, corporations don't work like that. The stock can be taken in bankruptcy so they don't protect assets inside the corp from bankruptcy of the holder. They only protect assets outside the corp from bankruptcy of the corp.
The public at large does not know how much Trump is worth because he won't disclose much of anything.
See how this level of discussion of not just demanding a citation, but then limiting what citations you accept to an extremely small set of documents isn't constructive?
It's a reasonable question, but 1 minute googling got this report https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/kendalltaggart/here-are... with 3 of them viz.
The Trump Taj Mahal Casino
Trump’s Plaza
The Trump Castle
What evidence in your view, other than his his tax returns and financial statements, is there to show his wealth? Because that's fundamentally what's being requested. I don't think those exact documents are needed if there are good alternatives. Suggest some alternatives.
>What evidence in your view, other than his his tax returns and financial statements, is there to show his wealth?
You really think that you need tax returns to prove he is currently wealthy? Is that a consistent standard you apply to everyone? When someone says that Bill Gates is rich, do you request the same level of documentation before you believe it? Are you doubting the relevance of other indicators of wealth such as lifestyle and property holdings?
> The public at large does not know how much Trump is worth
So this is about HOW MUCH he is worth. Hence the request for docs quantifying it.
Then I say
> Suggest some alternatives
And you just snowjob with questions in return. I asked a question. Please answer it by stating what publicly available docs will show trump's wealth.
> Are you doubting the relevance of other indicators of wealth such as lifestyle and property holdings?
Irrelevant.
We want to know how much so as to judge his competency at business. Please answer, what public documents will show his wealth.
Also why are you so willing to assume he is a competent businessman without actual, audited financial evidence to back up his claims?
If.
Did Trump ever put more effort into anything in his campaign and Presidency than he put into preventing his tax returns from getting out?
If you want to claim he isn't as rich as he claims, then then I'm not disputing that at all (I haven't a clue), but to claim he isn't rich does not align with existing evidence without fiddling with how we define rich and poor in ways we don't otherwise fiddle with such definitions.
Having, say $300 million sounds like a lot. But if you inherited $700 million (as Trump likely did), having only $300 left today is a catastrophic failure.
Other tools he's used include hiring undocumented immigrants for construction and then not paying them and refusing to pay contractors that worked on his buildings. He maintains his wealth by making deals and then refusing to pay when the bill comes. The bankruptcies are just a part of this pattern of behaviour.
Mark Cuban speculated that he wasn't a billionaire, and maybe not even a 500-millionaire. He talked big and pushed the brand, because that's all he had.
His main claim to fame, nearest I can tell, is a mix of poorly run real estate, reality TV, schlepping shit tier steaks, and his online university that got sued out of existence.
Put another way, if I were given $100M by my dad back in the 40+ years ago, and managed to grow it to, say, $500M by today, that would be nice, but I wouldn't consider myself "good with money". And it looks like the real figure for Trump may be north of $400M[0], which makes even $1B -- if he has that today -- look not all that impressive.
We're talking about the US President here, someone we should feel comfortable with influencing/managing the fate of trillions of dollars. Trump is not that guy.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/d...
2) His wealth was not created by himself, at any rate. He lied and said he inherited a small loan of a million, when in fact it was at least 2 orders of magnitude more than that. His father was the real smart businessman and his career has largely been failure upon failure.
3) He basically did win the lottery of being born to a wealthy father and squandered it all. How much did he squander is very hard to say when he himself covers up the details.
So yes, he is incompetent with money and business. He is competent with power, intimidation, and getting his way. That may have worked in the small pond of the 2016 election, but that is about the only place the man's been successful.
Because money laundering is illegal?
And no, those six bankruptcies were not strategic, they were failures to operate a business. One bankruptcy is strategic, two a coincidence, six a signal of incompetence. The sheer number of shell corps he's founded and thousands of civil court cases points to exploiting investors through shady practices.
Example: Business 1 buys a $1M piece of equipment with 30% down and 70% credit. After a couple years, and knowing that Business 1 is not that profitable anyway, the machine is sold to Business 2 for $150k, even though it's probably worth $700k still.
Business 2 makes $550k profit on the books. Business 1 files bankruptcy. The creditor loses their $250k outstanding loan. If the same owners own both businesses, they come out massively ahead.
Rinse / repeat with dozens (or hundreds) of businesses, some automated workflows and depreciation tables, credit line hacking, etc.
An established real estate family will have plenty of room to shuffle assets and credit lines around in a favorable way within those limits... for a generation or two.
He did not create 515 for-profit businesses.