My understanding is that he's generated less returns off his inheritance than he would have done by investing in index funds. If true, isn't he just a rich kid spending his inheritance?
He didn't inherit any large sum, that was a fraudulent story pushed by the left to attack Trump. It's not an exaggeration to say that there was zero evidence presented to support that claim.
Trump has said he received a million dollar loan to get started (circa early 1970s?). The return he generated, to say the least, was extraordinary.
Further, even going by that bogus story, not all sectors of the economy generate the same returns. A person is not to be shamed for making less money in retail or dog food than in tech or oil. One has to consider the results they generated in the field they chose to focus in. It's disingenuous, and then some, to hold all business people up to the standard of: well if you had just put all your money, at some arbitrary high point, into an index fund for N years, you'd be richer - that would discredit nearly all successful business people.
Hey Sam Walton, if you had just liquidated all of your Walmart shares in 1992 before you died and put the wealth into an index fund, your family would be richer. That's mathematically correct and ridiculous. Off the top of my head I can list dozens of examples like this among the Forbes 400 past or present.
I was reasonably sure there were well cited stories in the NYT showing his effective inheritance was huge, and that he'd massively underperformed compared to other NY property developers. Are those fake news because they're from NYT?
No, there was never any evidence provided to support the claim. Trump publicly stated over, and over, and over again that it wasn't correct. The liberal media never gave evidence post any of those statements by Trump about the million dollar loan, to refute him. Then they entirely dropped the attack as a vector, obviously because they couldn't support it.
edit: I never said Marco Rubio was part of the liberal media. You're inventing that false setup. I said the liberal media, that doesn't mean Marco Rubio must belong to the liberal media if he also said x y z about Trump. Given how very heated the race was, why would it be surprising for any of the Republican competitors to latch on to the same attacks?
So in other words, there's zero evidence to support Trump inheriting a vast fortune, exactly as I said.
According to this article, Trump said in a deposition that he borrowed $9m against future inheritance, making claims it was only worth $1m suspect. Seems hard to get decent figures, other than those that show he consistently lies about the situation:
Warren Buffett is both. He's a very capable schmoozer now after decades of practice (he wasn't when he was very young). His style of schmoozing, the disarming folksy charm etc., is a huge part of what enabled him to buy the companies he did, luring in very talented owner/operators. And he's an empire builder of the scale few in world history have ever managed in financial terms. To manage to put something like Berkshire together and not have it collapse under its own weight after 50+ years (due to mismanagement or any number of dozens of common reasons), is an extraordinary accomplishment of building.
So that's the problem, "we" virtually never recognize that the builder is the right one for the job. The charismatic person always gets the job/money/fame/whatever.
We have defined a "Builder Type" CEO who is not charismatic yet is defined by being able to build and ship things. Like Mark Zuckerberg minus his team of PR people.
Then we have a "Charismatic Type" CEO who people like but who can't get anything done.
By this definition, Obama would be the useless yet charismatic CEO. Hillary, who has never built anything (that I can identify), would be a "Builder" type (apparently?). And Donald Trump...who indisputably has built things despite being both charismatic and hated would blend both of these together?
I don't agree with this analysis. It isn't that easy to slice this one.
> By this definition, Obama would be the useless yet charismatic CEO.
Useless, no, charismatic, yes. PG isn't saying that you can't be both powerful and charismatic - he's saying if you are to become powerful, you'd better be charismatic as well. His comment about them being the best person for the job is over the "schmoozers", who are charismatic but aren't building things.
> Hillary, who has never built anything (that I can identify)
I agree here. I don't think a clean dichotomy is being discussed. I think PG is just lamenting that charisma is necessary to hold power over other people.
>Hillary, who has never built anything (that I can identify), would be a "Builder" type (apparently?).
Well what do you define as building? She was a successful legislator and built up a charity and public speaking business for herself out of almost nothing.
I don't believe the Clinton Foundation or public speaking business (which Bill also pursued) was built up out of nothing. What greater head-start could you get to begin building a public speaking business or foundation than to be either the former President or married to the world famous former President of the only superpower? The connections, the access to money and favors, the uber rich people (eg Wall Street) that want to buy your ear, it's beyond immense.
I think PG makes a few assumptions in this musing that deserve more though and criticism. Power and charisma together often brew megalomania, and I don't see charisma itself as a powerful person's antidote to being hated. Without diving into politics, I think there are a few good arguments out there for "lack of charisma" being the least of HRC's problems.
I'd be more interested to hear PG explore his own relationship to charisma and power on a personal and professional level than read this oddly deflecting set of statements.
Is there any data that 'builder' type presidents are better than charismatic ones? In our hyper-media age you need charisma or you'll fail to effect change. This may or may not be a good thing as the change charismatic leaders want may or may not be ultimately good for the nation but it seems to be a necessary (but not solely sufficient) ingredient for greatness.
This is a false dichotomy.
How does one "build things" without deploying the charisma necessary to change processes and people?
How does one "build things" without schmoozing nay-sayers into agreement and finding acceptable modifications to the original plan.
Donald Trump is both a powerful builder and very charismatic. He builds buildings and has loads of charisma.
The dichotomy between Trump and Hillary is false in this case on dimensions other than simply having charisma.
Trump had more charisma than Hillary as well as the 16 or whatever ridiculous number of GOP candidates there were at one point.
Bernie Sanders was the only candidate in this cycle with a similar level of charisma and Democrats did the thing that the GOP did the previous 2 elections - and it cost them.
Trump is many things, and charismatic may be one of them, although personally I don't see it, but "a powerful builder" is not one of them.
Trump doesn't build buildings - he licenses his name to buildings other people build. He doesn't even own most of the properties that bear his name. The only thing he can feasibly claim to have built is his own celebrity, and prior to his recent status, his celebrity might generously be described as b-list - he was a reality show star who was once a professional wrestling celebrity heel and sometimes guest starred as himself on various tv shows.
The distinction is important, I believe, because to me, "builder" implies someone with a passion and a deep understanding of the art of whatever they make their living at. I don't see a passion about architecture or design from Trump, nor do I get a sense that he understands how they work, or that he cares.
Most of the mega developers do not own all of what they build or buy into. The richest real estate billionaires of the last 50 years, most of them develop large projects in investment groups. You're presenting a hollow argument against Trump, judging by the investment style of his billionaire real estate peers.
What one builds is important, when describing the core competencies of a person.
Describing Trump as someone who builds his buildings gives him credit for a depth of insight and an active hand in the process of architecture, and the gp comment that appears to liken him to Steve Jobs further implies that Trump has an equivalent level of talent and genius in his field. I see no evidence that he is to real estate what Steve Jobs was to Apple computers.
Donald Trump is a builder of fortunes, of his own celebrity and business relationships. As such, I would judge him on the quality of the network he surrounds himself with, because his core competency appears to be choosing people to build things for him.
And I wouldn't necessarily claim that any business co-founder is a builder. Otherwise, I might as well say I build rockets if I invest enough money into SpaceX.
Hillary Clinton as a Builder?
Building for whom?
Have we already forgotten her disastrous State Dep. run? Has she built or destroyed in the Middle East?
27 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 64.6 ms ] threadHe is literally off the charts both. He builds very large, impressive buildings for a living.
He is enough of a charismatic individual that through force of personality won the presidency.
Trump has said he received a million dollar loan to get started (circa early 1970s?). The return he generated, to say the least, was extraordinary.
Further, even going by that bogus story, not all sectors of the economy generate the same returns. A person is not to be shamed for making less money in retail or dog food than in tech or oil. One has to consider the results they generated in the field they chose to focus in. It's disingenuous, and then some, to hold all business people up to the standard of: well if you had just put all your money, at some arbitrary high point, into an index fund for N years, you'd be richer - that would discredit nearly all successful business people.
Hey Sam Walton, if you had just liquidated all of your Walmart shares in 1992 before you died and put the wealth into an index fund, your family would be richer. That's mathematically correct and ridiculous. Off the top of my head I can list dozens of examples like this among the Forbes 400 past or present.
edit: also I'm not entirely sure Marco Rubio counts as "liberal media", but I'm not up to date with the latest lingo. Politifact seems to think $1m is fairly unlikely though: http://www.politifact.com/florida/article/2016/mar/07/did-do...
edit: I never said Marco Rubio was part of the liberal media. You're inventing that false setup. I said the liberal media, that doesn't mean Marco Rubio must belong to the liberal media if he also said x y z about Trump. Given how very heated the race was, why would it be surprising for any of the Republican competitors to latch on to the same attacks?
So in other words, there's zero evidence to support Trump inheriting a vast fortune, exactly as I said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/fact-checker/wp/...
We have defined a "Builder Type" CEO who is not charismatic yet is defined by being able to build and ship things. Like Mark Zuckerberg minus his team of PR people.
Then we have a "Charismatic Type" CEO who people like but who can't get anything done.
By this definition, Obama would be the useless yet charismatic CEO. Hillary, who has never built anything (that I can identify), would be a "Builder" type (apparently?). And Donald Trump...who indisputably has built things despite being both charismatic and hated would blend both of these together?
I don't agree with this analysis. It isn't that easy to slice this one.
Useless, no, charismatic, yes. PG isn't saying that you can't be both powerful and charismatic - he's saying if you are to become powerful, you'd better be charismatic as well. His comment about them being the best person for the job is over the "schmoozers", who are charismatic but aren't building things.
> Hillary, who has never built anything (that I can identify)
https://www.congress.gov/member/hillary-clinton/C001041
> It isn't that easy to slice this one.
I agree here. I don't think a clean dichotomy is being discussed. I think PG is just lamenting that charisma is necessary to hold power over other people.
Well what do you define as building? She was a successful legislator and built up a charity and public speaking business for herself out of almost nothing.
I'd be more interested to hear PG explore his own relationship to charisma and power on a personal and professional level than read this oddly deflecting set of statements.
Naturally they both excel at each, ultimately 2 different means to the same end
The dichotomy between Trump and Hillary is false in this case on dimensions other than simply having charisma.
Trump had more charisma than Hillary as well as the 16 or whatever ridiculous number of GOP candidates there were at one point.
Bernie Sanders was the only candidate in this cycle with a similar level of charisma and Democrats did the thing that the GOP did the previous 2 elections - and it cost them.
Trump doesn't build buildings - he licenses his name to buildings other people build. He doesn't even own most of the properties that bear his name. The only thing he can feasibly claim to have built is his own celebrity, and prior to his recent status, his celebrity might generously be described as b-list - he was a reality show star who was once a professional wrestling celebrity heel and sometimes guest starred as himself on various tv shows.
The distinction is important, I believe, because to me, "builder" implies someone with a passion and a deep understanding of the art of whatever they make their living at. I don't see a passion about architecture or design from Trump, nor do I get a sense that he understands how they work, or that he cares.
They don't deserve to be considered "builders" either. Certainly not "builders of buildings."
Describing Trump as someone who builds his buildings gives him credit for a depth of insight and an active hand in the process of architecture, and the gp comment that appears to liken him to Steve Jobs further implies that Trump has an equivalent level of talent and genius in his field. I see no evidence that he is to real estate what Steve Jobs was to Apple computers.
Donald Trump is a builder of fortunes, of his own celebrity and business relationships. As such, I would judge him on the quality of the network he surrounds himself with, because his core competency appears to be choosing people to build things for him.
And I wouldn't necessarily claim that any business co-founder is a builder. Otherwise, I might as well say I build rockets if I invest enough money into SpaceX.
Whitewashing comes early.