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).
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.
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?
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.
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.
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!
5 U.S. Code § 2101. Civil service; armed forces; uniformed services
Someone who is part of the supposed DC government told me straight up that he is a lunatic.
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.
Or "the normative power of the factual".
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".
The deep state AKA someone watched Yes, Minister and wrote an American adaptation.
Those who were fooled, were fooled because they chose to be.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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:
> ... 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.
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...
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 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.
Because money laundering is illegal?
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.
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.
That's how obvious it is that he's a bullshitter and a useful idiot for a lot of shitty people, and has no idea how anything works, and basically has the intellect and integrity of a first grader. Downvote me all you want everyone, but that's the truth. Every downvote I will take with great, great pride. If you voted for him, you're even dumber (or more selfish, if you think of him as your own useful idiot) than he is.
I have had a lifelong problem with constantly doubting my own perceptions about things, and always thinking that I can never be 100% certain about anything, and being hypervigilant about my own potential sources of bias and irrationality and unreliable information, but multiple years into this thing I have no choice but to admit that everything I wrote above is just plain true. It's not rocket science, it's not brain surgery, it's not even grade school arithmetic. It's OBVIOUS, and if someone doesn't see it after all these years they either don't pay attention or are as bad or worse than he is. Or they're literally children who are just that sheltered and naive about other people and the world and how it works.
Just a thought.
My math prof likened it to the axiomatic frameworks: if a person has bad facts or faulty reasoning, but your core axioms (values) are similar, you are more likely to come to a point of mutual agreement or at least understanding. If your values (axioms) are radically different, chances are your entire frameworks are different and possibly incompatible. You'll be talking past each other, discussing methods while in fact your goals and assumptions are completely different.
Philosophical answer - depends on your philosophy and how you feel about philosophical zombie - i.e. is it only outward results or internal causes that make a difference to you.
Although maybe that's only true if you find their values tolerable. Otherwise I suppose the advantage is in knowing you'll have to start strategizing if the conclusions from their values are incompatible with yours.
Either way it does seem valuable to know the other person's complete reasoning, just trying to quantify as many reasons why as possible.
It's pretty arrogant to assume there is only one way to look at things - your way.
If someone is acting malevolently, then you can rationalize basically anything with regards to hurting them or their well-being.
If someone just views the world differently, you will be annoyed by them, but probably not able to rationalize to yourself that they should not exist.
The first part is interesting, but ultimately, if their conclusions were based only on facts and reasoning, their conclusions would only be limited to the area of facts, "is" statements. They would not be able to derive ought/should statements. (If you believe in Hume's Guillotine.)
I'm generally of liberal persuasion. I did not agree with almost anything that our Canadian previous conservative prime minister did... but I respected him. I thought he was intelligent, effective, and thoughtful. I didn't like that he was effective and productive about things I disagreed with, but I'd shake his hand and I can imagine having a thoughtful conversation and learning something, even if my mind may or may not be changed.
On the other hand, in theory, I "agree" with many of the things Michael Moore for example is fighting for. But I do not respect him, and I cannot watch more than 2 minutes of his programs before wanting to yell at the TV. Certainly, I wouldn't elect him. He is a propagandist, he cherry picks data, and presents a skewed picture. Ann Coulter or Glenn Beck or Michael Moore or Al Franken (the pundit; he may or may not have been more honest as a politician, but his prior books were awful) - it's not a matter of how much I agree with them, but that I find them all fundamentally dishonest.
Which brings us to Trump - my biggest concern is not that I disagree with him (which I do). It's that I have no respect for his mental faculties, honesty, abilities, consistency, beliefs, values, thoughtfulness, or any of the characteristics some of us believe a head of state should have. Further, I think not only is he doing a disfavour for those who disagree with him, I think he's doing a disfavour for those who agree with him / voted for him.
At the end of the day, I may disagree with somebody about what's the best colour to paint the room; I may disagree with somebody on what the best way to fix a education system is, or even what its goals should be; I may disagree on budget priorities, on a country's role in the world, and so on. There's fascinating discussion, debate and learning to be had with people of opposing opinions.
But if somebody wants to buy a bridge somebody's selling them, enroll in a cult, or jump out of an airplane without a parachute thinking it'll end well for them, dunno... I don't think it's in the "difference of opinion" category :|
A relation of mine went from studying marine biology to full on fundie. Creationism, climate denial, etc. Huge Trump supporter too, of course.
Can any one explain to me how a one time scientist now doubts evolution?
Complicated plot. It's all interconnected...
How many liberal atheists do you know with 4+ kids, versus conservatives?
Or, you know, people who didn't want to see Supreme Court seats go to the extreme left for the rest of their lives.
Bay area engineer here. Did Google for a few years, did a B2B startup, acquired by FANG, now lead a team of 30. Good relationships with family and physically fit.
I voted for Trump. Statistically, I'm not dumb.
Why is the electoral college dysfunctional when it goes against the popular vote, even though it's designed to be able to do so? This has happened several times before without issue.
Not all Trump voters are "people dumber than he is". That's a ridiculous generalization and little more than morally-superior posturing. People are much more complicated with their choices then you may believe.
I'm not sure we should be delving into politics on hacker news. But if it's okay for the goose, allow the gander to retort.
I hear you expressing your frustration and believe me I am fully aware that many Americans are very frustrated. Especially people on the left who have suffered a series of depressing defeats. On an emotional level, I'm worried and empathetic.
I think you are correctly recognizing certain behavioral characteristics of Trump that are unpleasant and possibly harmful such as lies, bragging, and narcissistic behavior. Many (probably most) people on the right who voted for him also see those characteristics. They are as you say "completely obvious." It is not that people on the right are "blind." So the question is why did they vote for him anyway? Why wouldn't these characteristics rule him out?
Your conclusion is that they are (if not blind) dumb. That might be true for some people, but it cannot possibly explain it for everybody. Take myself for example. I have had my IQ tested three times, and the lowest value was 147. I would say that objectively speaking I am not dumb. I must qualify this with the fact that I was a child all three times so there was a correction factor involved which would not apply now, so my IQ is probably lower today. I hate to put this paragraph in because it sounds like bragging, but I need evidence to demonstrate my point.
Here is part of the answer to the mystery we are presented with:
1) Trump did in fact do very well in business, contrary to various articles that argue he would have done better in the S&P500.
Their calculations are off because they don't value his business as a going concern, did not apply top tax rates to the
dividends, and often picked the market bottom which is unfair as nobody can time the market. The methodology was flawed
because it is a sector comparison (stocks to real estate). The conclusion is flawed because it presumes being on par with
the S&P500 is what "any idiot could do in an index fund" but the proper conclusion is "being on par with the very best
companies" because it's not sharing in someone else's created wealth, it's actually creating the wealth.
EDIT: I forgot to add, they completely ignored expenses.
2) Trump's lies are mostly inconsequential bragging. Everyone can see through them. Successful deception would actually be
damaging, but unsuccessful "first grader stuff" isn't damaging because we can all see through it. We know full well why
he lies in most cases (narcissism or negotiation, in both cases we are okay with it). Also, we like that he just says what
he thinks openly rather than being careful with his words which makes us suspicious of dececptions that we might not be able
to detect.
3) He has openly promised things that right-wingers want and have been pounding the table about for generations. And we believed
he was serious about it and wouldn't let politics or being politically correctness get in the way. We were right, he didn't.
He just storms ahead damn-the-torpedoes, ignoring the news, ignoring the 'game'. Most republicans would have restrained
themselves based on political chicanery. Right-wingers love it and left wingers hate it because he is "unmitigated."
What you say is a great explanation, and makes sense, but then you go on about IQ as if it means something?
Whose thought? The people who didn't know that trump was an incompetent nutjob?