The problem isn’t just the call for uncertainty around defending NATO countries or saying that it’s okay that the Saudi’s get nukes. It’s that the reason he makes those bad calls is that he lacks the skills to be a good B-player.
EY then references how various right wing national security officials think Trump is dangerous for those reasons.
For any individual call you can make the argument that the call is unlikely to cause WW3 but a person who consistently makes bad calls like that because he doesn’t listen to experts and has a low attention span is likely to make a lot of bad judgement calls once in office that in turn create problems.
There’s a lot more than just a court case. You are off by more than an order in magnitude on the amount of court cases.
In many cases a person who sues was also looking at paying more in legal costs than the case is worth and Trump had lawyers who dragged out cases for years.
The issue here isn’t raising the debt but saying on the campaign trial that he plans to default on US debt. When a president speaks about their willingness to default on debt that creates a reason for rating agencies to downgrade US debt when means that the US has to pay more interest for their debt.
I don’t think it’s a different topic from nuclear war. If the US doesn’t do what it promised to other countries the way Trump doesn’t payed his contractors that can lead to international tension and that tension can lead to war.
Mr. Trump pushed the approach beyond construction and into day-to-day casino operations, said Jack O’Donnell, president of Mr. Trump’s Plaza casino in Atlantic City in the late 1980s. “Part of how he did business as a philosophy was to negotiate the best price he could. And then when it came time to pay the bills,” he said, Mr. Trump would say that “ ’I’m going to pay you but I’m going to pay you 75% of what we agreed to.
In our business it’s very difficult to operate that way. You’re dealing with people on an ongoing basis. Every time you order with them you can’t screw them because they won’t be your suppliers anymore,” Mr. O’Donnell said. Executives at the casino paid vendors fully despite Mr. Trump’s directives, he said, and “it used to infuriate him.”
Trump got angry with his employees upholding contracts about paying contractors.
I’m not denying that Trump does not seem like the best choice (out of the entire US population) for geopolitics. I’ll concede that point. But look at Hillary—doesn’t she want to impose a no-fly zone over Syria? Threaten to shoot down Russian planes? Why? This isn’t the cold war, where maybe we had to draw a line in the sand. If the Russians want to have greater influence over Syria, let them.
Maybe there is another level to this that I don’t understand because I am not an expert in geopolitics, but I would have thought it wiser to not restart the cold war, let Russia have influence over some nearby countries, and present a united front against radical Islam.
As for the economics arguments, to be frank I attach little weight to what the media says given how biased they’ve been. Lets look at the markets, where people actually put their money on the line. The USD is up against the Euro and the Yen. The sp500 is up 1%. I see no reason for the US to worry about economics.
Finally, Trump will have advisers. And even if he does appear a little unstable, well, there are some games (like chicken) where someone that appears to be a little crazy will beat a calm rational person running causal decision theory every time.
It would be nice to see USA turning against Saudi Arabia, and Russia against Kadyrov and Assad. I wouldn’t bet my money on such outcome, though. Would you?
let Russia have influence over some nearby countries
Okay, here is the part where I would be much more comfortable betting my money.
It’s not good for the Yen when the US wants to introduce trade tariffs. It’s also not good for the Euro.
With the stock market it’s also not clear to interpret the message. Normally risky times mean that traders sell stocks and buy treasury bonds. Given that Trump suggested he might partly default on US debt, that’s not a safe move.
Many stocks did rise because of the prospect of their industries getting deregulated. The reduction of the corporate tax rate would normally also be expected to produce a stock market rise.
The prospect of various US companies maybe being able to bring home to the US huge sums of cash that’s currently overseas also has an effect on the macro.
But look at Hillary—doesn’t she want to impose a no-fly zone over Syria? Threaten to shoot down Russian planes? Why? This isn’t the cold war, where maybe we had to draw a line in the sand. If the Russians want to have greater influence over Syria, let them.
Finally, Trump will have advisers. And even if he does appear a little unstable, well, there are some games (like chicken) where someone that appears to be a little crazy will beat a calm rational person running causal decision theory every time.
But the role of the US president shouldn’t be to beat other people but to create win-win situations. Trump isn’t used to seeking win-win.
Trump will have advisers but that doesn’t automatically mean that he listens to them.
Maybe there is another level to this that I don’t understand because I am not an expert in geopolitics, but I would have thought it wiser to not restart the cold war, let Russia have influence over some nearby countries, and present a united front against radical Islam.
Policy wise I don’t think Clinton’s plan is good, but I think her moves are calculated.
It’s not good for the Yen when the US wants to introduce trade tariffs. It’s also not good for the Euro.
With the stock market it’s also not clear to interpret the message. Normally risky times mean that traders sell stocks and buy
treasury bonds. Given that Trump suggested he might partly default on US debt, that’s not a safe move.
Good point—I had not considered this. Still, I would assume that even if the dollar does not go down, there would still be some sort of sign of danger in the markets if there were possible economic problems. Maybe US stocks going down as money flows into overseas assets?
But the role of the US president shouldn’t be to beat other people but to create win-win situations.
Ideally, yes, but the world is not some perfect utopia, and there are external threats that do need to be beaten.
Maybe US stocks going down as money flows into overseas assets?
Quite a lot of money is going to flow into the US when there’s a deal to allow companies like Apple to move their cash to the US and not pay the full taxes for it.
In general a trader who assumes that Trump engages into actions that are harmful for other countries also has no reason to move assets to other countries.
The problem isn’t just the call for uncertainty around defending NATO countries or saying that it’s okay that the Saudi’s get nukes. It’s that the reason he makes those bad calls is that he lacks the skills to be a good B-player.
EY then references how various right wing national security officials think Trump is dangerous for those reasons.
For any individual call you can make the argument that the call is unlikely to cause WW3 but a person who consistently makes bad calls like that because he doesn’t listen to experts and has a low attention span is likely to make a lot of bad judgement calls once in office that in turn create problems.
There’s a lot more than just a court case. You are off by more than an order in magnitude on the amount of court cases. In many cases a person who sues was also looking at paying more in legal costs than the case is worth and Trump had lawyers who dragged out cases for years.
It got so far that contractors in Atlantic City institute what the called a “Trump tax” that meant charging Trump more because they didn’t expect him to pay his full bills: http://europe.newsweek.com/quora-question-does-donald-trump-refuse-workers-pay-508992?rm=eu
The issue here isn’t raising the debt but saying on the campaign trial that he plans to default on US debt. When a president speaks about their willingness to default on debt that creates a reason for rating agencies to downgrade US debt when means that the US has to pay more interest for their debt.
I don’t think it’s a different topic from nuclear war. If the US doesn’t do what it promised to other countries the way Trump doesn’t payed his contractors that can lead to international tension and that tension can lead to war.
A key quote from another article:
Trump got angry with his employees upholding contracts about paying contractors.
I’m not denying that Trump does not seem like the best choice (out of the entire US population) for geopolitics. I’ll concede that point. But look at Hillary—doesn’t she want to impose a no-fly zone over Syria? Threaten to shoot down Russian planes? Why? This isn’t the cold war, where maybe we had to draw a line in the sand. If the Russians want to have greater influence over Syria, let them.
Maybe there is another level to this that I don’t understand because I am not an expert in geopolitics, but I would have thought it wiser to not restart the cold war, let Russia have influence over some nearby countries, and present a united front against radical Islam.
As for the economics arguments, to be frank I attach little weight to what the media says given how biased they’ve been. Lets look at the markets, where people actually put their money on the line. The USD is up against the Euro and the Yen. The sp500 is up 1%. I see no reason for the US to worry about economics.
Finally, Trump will have advisers. And even if he does appear a little unstable, well, there are some games (like chicken) where someone that appears to be a little crazy will beat a calm rational person running causal decision theory every time.
It would be nice to see USA turning against Saudi Arabia, and Russia against Kadyrov and Assad. I wouldn’t bet my money on such outcome, though. Would you?
Okay, here is the part where I would be much more comfortable betting my money.
Not soon. Maybe later, as solar takes over from oil. But maybe we can move in that direction.
It’s not good for the Yen when the US wants to introduce trade tariffs. It’s also not good for the Euro.
With the stock market it’s also not clear to interpret the message. Normally risky times mean that traders sell stocks and buy treasury bonds. Given that Trump suggested he might partly default on US debt, that’s not a safe move.
Many stocks did rise because of the prospect of their industries getting deregulated. The reduction of the corporate tax rate would normally also be expected to produce a stock market rise.
The prospect of various US companies maybe being able to bring home to the US huge sums of cash that’s currently overseas also has an effect on the macro.
But the role of the US president shouldn’t be to beat other people but to create win-win situations. Trump isn’t used to seeking win-win.
Trump will have advisers but that doesn’t automatically mean that he listens to them.
Policy wise I don’t think Clinton’s plan is good, but I think her moves are calculated.
Good point—I had not considered this. Still, I would assume that even if the dollar does not go down, there would still be some sort of sign of danger in the markets if there were possible economic problems. Maybe US stocks going down as money flows into overseas assets?
Ideally, yes, but the world is not some perfect utopia, and there are external threats that do need to be beaten.
Quite a lot of money is going to flow into the US when there’s a deal to allow companies like Apple to move their cash to the US and not pay the full taxes for it.
In general a trader who assumes that Trump engages into actions that are harmful for other countries also has no reason to move assets to other countries.