|
|
Post by Angie on Jun 22, 2017 9:49:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Don on Jun 22, 2017 11:06:09 GMT -5
So, Trump's crony crapitolist pick of Gary Cohn aside, is there really any dispute at all that a poor person would be a terrible choice for a senior economic advisor to the President?
I hate Trump, but I don't get the angst here. I seriously doubt anyone complaining about the "optics" of his poor word choice are asking their poor friends for economic advice either. Of course poor people would make terrible economic advisors. Should Trump name Mercola as Surgeon General? Or maybe a preacher as head of HUD?
Oh, wait... about that last one...
|
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jun 22, 2017 16:11:53 GMT -5
Sure, a poor person would likely not have the qualifications to be an economic advisor. But Trump used this statement as a counter, as a justification, for selecting a bunch of billionaire Wall Street-bred crony crapitolist (to borrow from Don) types.
There are a lot of economic statuses in between "poor" and "billionaire," and a lot of qualified, talented people reside within that chasm.
It was a stupid, nonsensical, assholish thing to say. And all the fans cheered.
|
|
|
|
Post by Angie on Jun 22, 2017 19:48:41 GMT -5
^^ This.
You do not have to be a billionaire to understand economics - and I would argue that having only billionaires in those roles means we're just going to get even more leniency for the rich at the expense of the "poor" (which in Trump's mind could very well mean anyone who makes less than seven figures a year).
|
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Jun 22, 2017 19:56:29 GMT -5
I'd be more likely to trust someone who came from nothing and built something, even if they're not rich, than someone born into wealth, if we're going by that and that alone. I wouldn't pick someone who can't handle finance and it shows because despite making a decent living, they live paycheck to paycheck.
But is Trumps idea of poor the same as someone else?
|
|
|
|
Post by Angie on Jun 22, 2017 19:57:58 GMT -5
But is Trumps idea of poor the same as someone else? That's the point I made above. His idea of "poor" might mean anyone who makes less than seven figures. |
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jun 22, 2017 20:08:06 GMT -5
Yeah, does a billionaire really understand economics in regard to the U.S. economy, considering the circumstances of all Americans, or is it merely the perspective of the wealthy and their personal economics? (See: proposed tax cuts.)
I have seen firsthand the total and utter disconnect of wealthy folks when it comes to finances (even though most I know are really very nice people). Stuff like, "Oh my goodness, can you believe I spent $350,000 this year? Where does it all go?" *headdesk*
I, too, was wondering how Trump defines "poor," and I think Angie's probably got it about right. Though maybe eight or nine figures....
|
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Jun 22, 2017 20:42:28 GMT -5
I get it. I kick myself over the huge amount of money I lost in a land deal once. I mean, we're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars, gone within an hour or less.
Never agree to sell off the orange properties for the rest of the railroads, especially to the guy who owns the purple.
|
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jun 22, 2017 21:22:10 GMT -5
Vince! You gotta hold out for the blue, green, and yellow. Come on, man.
|
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jun 23, 2017 9:53:44 GMT -5
I'd be more likely to trust someone who came from nothing and built something, even if they're not rich, than someone born into wealth, if we're going by that and that alone. Then we'd get people in government who were mostly worried about black helicopters... Anyway, when to comes to economics, I'm more inclined to trust people who can honestly admit that economics is not an actual science and that government policies and programs aren't how you create jobs or grow the economy. Such people don't tend to entire government service, however. |
|
|
|
Post by Don on Jun 24, 2017 8:37:18 GMT -5
I'd be more likely to trust someone who came from nothing and built something, even if they're not rich, than someone born into wealth, if we're going by that and that alone. Then we'd get people in government who were mostly worried about black helicopters... Anyway, when to comes to economics, I'm more inclined to trust people who can honestly admit that economics is not an actual science and that government policies and programs aren't how you create jobs or grow the economy. Such people don't tend to entire government service, however. The entire Keynesian oeuvre is nothing more than an economic interventionist apologia. OTOH, those with the humility to recognize the reality of Hayek's statement below lack sufficient hubris to claim Keynesian prescience of their policy prescriptions. Understanding the enormous difference in the two positions is critical to recognizing the relative popularity of the two schools of economic thought in the minds and institutions of the ruling class. ...and, consequently, those educated in the institutions of the ruling class are predisposed to dismiss the wisdom of Hayek as quickly as they would drop a rattlesnake. |
|
