What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Barrister]

The question should be about perception.  The reality is that one side is actually trying to protect their financial interests, but is voted out anyway in favor of sociopaths that would financially rape and pillage them to make a buck for themselves.

My answer would be that economics is a rational subject, while "culture" is emotional.  Emotions tend to dominate rationality.  People emotionally vote for the people that savage them financially, and then rationalize to themselves that neither party really cares about their financial interests.  It's not true, but facts don't counter emotion effectively.

I'd say that the real anwer is that politicians have less understanding of economics than the typical poster here has of particle physics.  The only thing most politicians know about economics is to blame their opponents for any bad economic news.

I think that's probably unfair of most politicians (though not Trump).  They understand economics.  But they also understand what is good politics and what isn't.  And they'll usually defer to something that is popular, even if it is not good economics.

[dps]

The question should be about perception.  The reality is that one side is actually trying to protect their financial interests, but is voted out anyway in favor of sociopaths that would financially rape and pillage them to make a buck for themselves.

My answer would be that economics is a rational subject, while “culture” is emotional.  Emotions tend to dominate rationality.  People emotionally vote for the people that savage them financially, and then rationalize to themselves that neither party really cares about their financial interests.  It’s not true, but facts don’t counter emotion effectively.

I'd say that the real anwer is that politicians have less understanding of economics than the typical poster here has of particle physics.  The only thing most politicians know about economics is to blame their opponents for any bad economic news.

I think that's probably unfair of most politicians (though not Trump).  They understand economics.  But they also understand what is good politics and what isn't.  And they'll usually defer to something that is popular, even if it is not good economics.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this, I think.  I may have overstated the extent, but I don't think most pols really understand economics.  I do think that most of them do sincerely want to improve economic conditions, but have no real idea about how to do that.

[DGuller]

The question should be about perception.  The reality is that one side is actually trying to protect their financial interests, but is voted out anyway in favor of sociopaths that would financially rape and pillage them to make a buck for themselves.

My answer would be that economics is a rational subject, while "culture" is emotional.  Emotions tend to dominate rationality.  People emotionally vote for the people that savage them financially, and then rationalize to themselves that neither party really cares about their financial interests.  It's not true, but facts don't counter emotion effectively.

I'd say that the real anwer is that politicians have less understanding of economics than the typical poster here has of particle physics.  The only thing most politicians know about economics is to blame their opponents for any bad economic news.

Politicians did not get to be where they are by being stupid.  They are often highly educated professinals who had successful careers before politics. 

However, they also didn't get to where they are by being naive.  The problem are the voters, not politicians, and the feeling of intellectual superiority that voters feel over politicians is a counter-productive conceit.

[Barrister]

Maybe.  I really hate arguing about what are in people's hearts and minds, as opposed to what they are actually doing.

I think I may have had former PM Stephen Harper in mind.  The man did hold a masters degree in economics after all!  But he did take several steps that may not have been economically optimal (such as cutting the GST from 7% to 5%), but sure were politically popular.

But even putting aside Trump, I suspect the GOP congressional leadership knows that cutting taxes and raising a monstrous debt are a bad idea - after all they've campaigned against doing it for years.  But they're beholden to their donors who insisted on a tax cut, so there they have it.

[DGuller]

Special interests are not omnipotent.  There is a political price to pay for surrendering to them, and the budget is limited.  When the voters think that the rent-seeking measures that rob them are actually desirable, they give away the prize to special interests for free, freeing up the budget for more rape and pillage.

Politicians will always be cynical, so looking for honest politicians as a solution is something that should be overly naive for a 5 year old.  The solution that actually works is to make them pay a high political price for cynical actions, so that they can't afford too many of them.  American voters are dreadful at keeping politicians accountable like that, and yet somehow they think they're smart while politicians are stupid.

[dps]

The question should be about perception.  The reality is that one side is actually trying to protect their financial interests, but is voted out anyway in favor of sociopaths that would financially rape and pillage them to make a buck for themselves.

My answer would be that economics is a rational subject, while “culture” is emotional.  Emotions tend to dominate rationality.  People emotionally vote for the people that savage them financially, and then rationalize to themselves that neither party really cares about their financial interests.  It’s not true, but facts don’t counter emotion effectively.

I'd say that the real anwer is that politicians have less understanding of economics than the typical poster here has of particle physics.  The only thing most politicians know about economics is to blame their opponents for any bad economic news.

Politicians did not get to be where they are by being stupid.  They are often highly educated professinals who had successful careers before politics. 

However, they also didn’t get to where they are by being naive.  The problem are the voters, not politicians, and the feeling of intellectual superiority that voters feel over politicians is a counter-productive conceit.

They are generally highly educated, but unlike Harper, generally not in economics.  They may be experts in their own fields, but very much ignorant of things outside it.  And I never said that they were stupid in general (ignorant isn't the same thing as stupid), just that they don't really understand economics.

And I certainly won't dispute that they will sometimes do things that are popular but that they know are unwise.

[The Brain]

I'm more intelligent than Trump.

[Eddie Teach]

And you're a cartoon mouse.

[Oexmelin]

I doubt it.

For instance, Trump has refused the services of an American interpreter during his encounter with Putin, preferring to rely on Putin's own translator. Who else but a highly intelligent person would do that?

[Razgovory]

I doubt it.

For instance, Trump has refused the services of an American interpreter during his encounter with Putin, preferring to rely on Putin's own translator. Who else but a highly intelligent person would do that?

I hadn't heard that...  Good God.

[Malthus]

I doubt it.

For instance, Trump has refused the services of an American interpreter during his encounter with Putin, preferring to rely on Putin's own translator. Who else but a highly intelligent person would do that?

Wise ... when you are planning to further sell out your country's interests to your Russian masters, best that all witnesses be Russian.

[Oexmelin]

GOP members of congress also refused to have Dems attend their own meetings with Russian delegates.

[The Minsky Moment]

I doubt it.

For instance, Trump has refused the services of an American interpreter during his encounter with Putin, preferring to rely on Putin's own translator. Who else but a highly intelligent person would do that?

But the American interpreter was translating into English, and Trump lacks a strong grasp of that language.

[Berkut]

I doubt it.

For instance, Trump has refused the services of an American interpreter during his encounter with Putin, preferring to rely on Putin's own translator. Who else but a highly intelligent person would do that?

That cannot possibly be true.

[crazy canuck]

I doubt it.

For instance, Trump has refused the services of an American interpreter during his encounter with Putin, preferring to rely on Putin's own translator. Who else but a highly intelligent person would do that?

That cannot possibly be true.

He has already done it - at the G20 summit in Hamburg.  Probably good odds he will do so again.