Trump: Even worse than we thought

Over the past year, I’ve been stunned to discover that Trump seems to have absolutely no redeeming qualities.  Even Nixon was intelligent.  Herbert Hoover was a highly competent manager.  Trump seems to be bad in just about every way a person can be judged:

1.  Pathological liar.

2.  Utterly ignorant of policy issues.

3.  Wrong on most policy issues.

3.  Bigoted and sexist.

4.  Highly vindictive.

5.  Distrusts expertise.

6.  Obnoxious personality.

7.  Has no taste.

Now we find that things are even worse than we imagined.  Surely a New York businessman who made lots of money in real estate must at least be a good manager.  Nope, he’s perhaps the worst manager ever to run for President of the United States.  Here’s The Economist:

THROUGHOUT the presidential primary contest, Donald Trump’s claim to be self-funding his campaign always drew loud cheers. Part boast—“I’m like, really rich” he would smirk—and part a badge of incorruptibility, the claim allowed the property developer to paint all his Republican rivals as puppets of special interests. Voters at campaign rallies would reliably cite his supposedly vast wealth, and the independence it brought, as one of their biggest reasons for trusting the businessman.

Loyal Trump supporters forgave their champion when he secured the nomination and abruptly changed his tune, boasting in early May that he would create a “world-class finance organisation” to solicit donors and fill war chests for himself and for the Republican Party. The same Trump loyalists will doubtless shrug off headlines that greeted the release of campaign-finance reports for the month of May, showing that he raised just $3.1m from donors and has just $1.3m cash on hand—sums dwarfed by Mrs Clinton’s campaign, which raised over $26m in May and started June with $42.5m in cash on hand. Mr Trump himself sounded defiant, asserting that he could spend “unlimited” sums of his own money if needs be.

That’s a mindbogglingly poor performance for a Presidential candidate, it’s what you’d expect of a Congressional candidate. And a substantial portion of the funds raised are used not to promote his campaign, but rather to enrich his own businesses, such as “Mar-a-Lago”:

Screen Shot 2016-06-26 at 10.21.12 AM

So he’s also corrupt.  Fundraising is one of the first cases where we’ve been able to judge Trump’s ability to get things done.  And he failed miserably.  In retrospect, this should not have been a surprise.  Contrary to widespread opinion, Trump has not had a successful business career, rather he’s been really lucky.  First he inherited $40 million from his dad, back in the 1970s.  If he’d just put the money into an index fund he would have done about as well as he’s actually done.  (We don’t know exactly how rich he is, and he won’t provide adequate documentation.)

But it’s even worse than that.  In the 1970s, the New York economy was a mess, and most people were very pessimistic about the city’s future.  In the decades since, New York has boomed and its property market has done far better than anyone dreamed possible during the 1970s.  An aggressive property speculator with a fortune to work with, and a willingness to be so leveraged that his businesses would endure occasional bankruptcies, should have massively outperformed the S&P500 during New York’s boom years.  He should be “really, really rich”, but he isn’t.  Which is why he’s raising money from suckers and using the funds to augment his personal wealth.

In Scotland, we saw another example of his appalling incompetence.  He claims to be the sort of nationalist that will “put America first” but he doesn’t even know how to do that:

Had he been in touch with his foreign policy advisers about the Brexit vote and its impact on the United States? “I speak to foreign policy advisers all the time. But the advice has to come from me,” Trump said. But, he added, what good were foreign policy advisers anyway? “What have these policy advisers done for us? Other than get big fees? It’s an embarrassment. The whole world is a mess. These people don’t have it. Honestly, most of them are no good.”

When informed that this vote had caused a sharp drop in global asset prices, he denied the obvious:

Though his staff had said he just wanted to talk golf, Trump quickly disregarded that edict, reaffirming his praise for the British vote to exit the European Union. Asked about the turmoil it has caused in the global financial markets, Trump replied that it was “too bad” but downplayed the role the so-called Brexit decision had played in riling the American stock market. He suggested there were larger factors involved. “A lot of bad decisions, a lot of bad things happening in this world,” Trump said.

Repeatedly pressed on what he would say to Americans worried about their retirement accounts, Trump straightened his white “Make America Great Again” hat, which had come loose atop his head. “Americans are very much different. This shouldn’t even affect them,” he replied.

Yes, that’s right.  There are lots of “bad things” happening in the world, which cause the S&P500 futures to plunge by more than 5% during a few minutes very late on a Thursday evening, at the exact same moment as the Betfair probability of Brexit suddenly soared from low numbers to near 100%.  Trump doesn’t need “experts” to tell him how the UK decision will damage the retirement accounts of Americans (like me), he already knows all this by himself.  He’s an expert on Brexit, despite the fact that he had no view on the issue just a few weeks earlier:

Asked if he thought Britain would be better of if it left, he said: “I don’t know, you’d have to ask them. I just think they may leave.”

Trump’s not even a competent nationalist.  When there is a conflict between the best interests of the US, and the nationalist faction of another country, he sides with the other country.  Trump certainly won’t make America’s retirement accounts great again, unless he starts standing up for America’s interests, not the Brits.  At least Obama stood up for the USA.

Even more ridiculous, he thought the Scots voted for Brexit:

Just arrived in Scotland. Place is going wild over the vote. They took their country back, just like we will take America back. No games!

Earth to Trump, Scotland voted 62% against Brexit, and may well leave the UK due to this decision, which means Britain will no longer be “Great”. What does he think about that?


Tags:

 
 
 

59 Responses to “Trump: Even worse than we thought”

  1. Gravatar of Steve Steve
    26. June 2016 at 07:44

    In fairness, one of the reasons the market declined is that Britain will no longer be a moderating influence over the crazies on the continent.

    There is likely to be retribution from jilted technocrats, plus if UK successfully exits (likely) it could tempt other countries who are in the Euro to try the same, which would be far more damaging.

  2. Gravatar of Steve Steve
    26. June 2016 at 07:45

    That said, Trump is currently in Scotland.

    We shouldn’t let him back in until we know what is going on.

  3. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    26. June 2016 at 07:48

    We shouldn’t let him back in until we know what is going on.

    Have Trump or any of his relations or employees executed a kamikaze operation at a government office in Edinburgh which left a dozen or so people dead?

  4. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    26. June 2016 at 07:49

    it could tempt other countries who are in the Euro to try the same, which would be far more damaging.

    I’d say the Spanish labor market has seen some damage already.

  5. Gravatar of Matthew Moore Matthew Moore
    26. June 2016 at 07:50

    Hi Scott,

    I really love your posts, here and over at Econlog. I consider myself a classical liberal. I supported Leave.

    While there was and is a nationalist faction to the Leave campaign, its two most prominent leaders are cosmopolitan liberal Tories. Watch Boris Johnson’s victory speech. These are members of the current government. In contrast, Nigel Garage has stood for parliament six times, and been defeated six times.

    Most people who voted Leave did so in protest at the extent of govenrment, and in support of democracy. It is not ‘nationalist’ to express a preference for responsive local democracy instead of unresponsive federal democracy.

    US commentators are seeing this as a ‘Trump moment’ because that it what they have been thinking about all year. The parallels are limited.

  6. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    26. June 2016 at 07:52

    That’s a mindbogglingly poor performance for a Presidential candidate,

    You like to measure performance in terms of inputs. There’s a job for you in school administration.

  7. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    26. June 2016 at 07:55

    In contrast, Nigel Garage has stood for parliament six times, and been defeated six times.

    He won a third of the vote his last campaign. He’s built Britain’s 3d largest political party from the ground up and the object of his career is well on its way to being achieved.

  8. Gravatar of Jon Jon
    26. June 2016 at 07:55

    Yep; he does seem to be a bad manager. At least until he finds the right advisors which he seems to do eventually…

    The size of his fortune is a low blow though. Think about his annual expenses and how that has dragged the compounding. What does the size of his fortune make him… Impatient maybe but aren’t there lots of evidence of impatience.

    I’m hoping a Marine Le Pen type outcome saves the Republican Party. He won’t.

  9. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    26. June 2016 at 07:58

    Trump’s right. Any trouble British expats in Spain and France have getting their residency permits approved doesn’t affect us over here. Tariffs on British goods bound for Lyon do not affect us either. (The common external tariff maintained by the EU averages less than 1%).

  10. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    26. June 2016 at 08:14

    Steve, You said:

    “In fairness, one of the reasons the market declined is that Britain will no longer be a moderating influence over the crazies on the continent.”

    In fairness to whom?

    Matthew, I understand that there is a good classical liberal case for Brexit. Ten years ago I might have supported it. But right now it’s all about nationalism, and I strongly disagree with this:

    “Most people who voted Leave did so in protest at the extent of government, and in support of democracy.”

    I doubt many people in the UK could name the regulations that will be repealed because of Brexit. I doubt that many will be repealed. I believe the vote was about immigration, and wa silliberal.

    Art, You said:

    You like to measure performance in terms of inputs.”

    That’s funny, I assumed that the output of a “world class finance organization” would be raising funds for the campaign. Thanks for informing me that the point of world class finance organization is not to finance the campaign. I never would have guessed.

    Perhaps you meant that the funds were an input into Trump’s “business” operations, like Mar-a-Lago. Fair enough.

    You said:

    “Trump’s right. Any trouble British expats in Spain and France have getting their residency permits approved doesn’t affect us over here. Tariffs on British goods bound for Lyon do not affect us either. (The common external tariff maintained by the EU averages less than 1%).”

    Even by your standards an utterly pointless reply to my comments about the impact of Brexit on retirement accounts.

  11. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    26. June 2016 at 08:22

    Jon, You said:

    “Yep; he does seem to be a bad manager. At least until he finds the right advisors which he seems to do eventually…”

    No he doesn’t, he’s contemptuous of political advisers. Read the post, he says he will not rely on advisers. He probably does get expert advice in areas where he knows he’s not an expert, say architecture or complex financial schemes, but he thinks he has all the answers on public policy, and that’s why he relies on his own instincts. I quote:

    “But, he added, what good were foreign policy advisers anyway? “What have these policy advisers done for us? Other than get big fees? It’s an embarrassment. The whole world is a mess. These people don’t have it. Honestly, most of them are no good.””

  12. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    26. June 2016 at 08:26

    “If he’d just put the money into an index fund he would have done about as well as he’s actually done.”

    -This has been a Point Refuted a Thousand Times. Even if your IQ is 140, Sumner, it still drops by 60+ points in regards to Trump.

    Your bullshit on Trump is getting thin.

    Make America Great Again!

  13. Gravatar of raywad raywad
    26. June 2016 at 08:32

    With Trump and Brexit, I think I am beginning to understand, or at least appreciate, market monetarism. What? It strikes me that market monetarism should more accurately be called virtual market monetarism, since policy (monetary policy anyway) would be determined by virtual markets (predictions of the future) rather than actual markets (current unemployment, interest rates, etc.). Sure, the prediction market in NGDP would be an actual market, but a market based on predictions of the future, a virtual market for a virtual future determining actual policy. No, I’m not being sarcastic. It seems that our capacity to understand what’s actually happening is not as good as our capacity to predict what will happen later – especially when there’s money to be made. Trump and Brexit are both actual disasters, yet few seem to have the capacity to realize it. A virtual market in Trump and Brexit would likely be much more accurate in assessing just how much of a disaster they are. Anyway, it seems that in the future most if not all of our experiences will be virtual rather than actual, so it makes sense to base policy on a virtual future.

  14. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    26. June 2016 at 08:44

    “There are lots of “bad things” happening in the world, which cause the S&P500 futures to plunge by more than 5% during a few minutes very late on a Thursday evening, at the exact same moment as the Betfair probability of Brexit suddenly soared from low numbers to near 100%.”

    -Wait, I thought Brexit was purely a monetary shock. Why don’t you blame the Fed, as you usually do, and not the people of the UK?

  15. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    26. June 2016 at 08:58

    Contrary to widespread opinion, Trump has not had a successful business career, rather he’s been really lucky. First he inherited $40 million from his dad, back in the 1970s. If he’d just put the money into an index fund he would have done about as well as he’s actually done. (We don’t know exactly how rich he is, and he won’t provide adequate documentation.)

    But it’s even worse than that. In the 1970s, the New York economy was a mess, and most people were very pessimistic about the city’s future. In the decades since, New York has boomed and its property market has done far better than anyone dreamed possible during the 1970s. An aggressive property speculator with a fortune to work with, and a willingness to be so leveraged that his businesses would endure occasional bankruptcies, should have massively outperformed the S&P500 during New York’s boom years. He should be “really, really rich”, but he isn’t. Which is why he’s raising money from suckers and using the funds to augment his personal wealth.

    The S & P 500 has increased 22 fold since 1970. If there had been index funds in 1970 and he spent flat nothing, he’d have about $900 million today. Per Forbes, his net worth is $4.5 billion.

    If it’s such a cinch to make money in real estate development, an inquiring mind might like to know who has piled up more of it in that line of business or adjacent ones like hotels and casinos. Per Forbes, there are 11 men in that line of business wealthier than Donald Trump, of whom 3 have been investing in New York.

  16. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    26. June 2016 at 09:03

    Even by your standards an utterly pointless reply to my comments about the impact of Brexit on retirement accounts.

    The market lost money one day. It’s not even touched the low points reached in the last 3 months. That’s your idea of ‘impact’? (And shouldn’t you be predominantly invested in bonds at your age?).

  17. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    26. June 2016 at 09:07

    but he thinks he has all the answers on public policy, and that’s why he relies on his own instincts. I quote:

    Lewis Amselem, who had 35 years in the Foreign Service, is a qualified Trump supporter. You’re not listening to Amselem. Ergo, what?

    For an example of a foreign policy greybeard, I give you the crew the dimwit booking agents at MacNeill Lehrer recruited to talk about Brexit. (Ivo Daalder was one). Trump can read insipid op-eds at the Times. He doesn’t need to employ these people at high salaries to get the Davos drone.

    Oh, maybe you’d prefer he ask Ben Rhodes to stay on.

  18. Gravatar of Major.Freedom Major.Freedom
    26. June 2016 at 09:14

    Bob Loblaw blah blah blah

  19. Gravatar of Negation of Ideology Negation of Ideology
    26. June 2016 at 09:16

    On Trump’s wealth – remember that he lost his libel lawsuit against Timothy O’Brien because he refused to provide evidence that O’Brien’s claim that he was only worth $150-250 million, when Trump claimed he was worth $5 Billion. (Truth is a defense against libel). If he’s so much richer than that, why did he refuse to prove it when he initiated the lawsuit?

    One quibble I have with this post, didn’t Fred Trump die in 1999, not the 70’s?

  20. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    26. June 2016 at 09:22

    Great post Scott. Although I was convinced he was as bad as all that back in 2012 when went full-batshit-birther. Wasn’t that really a huge clue? (BTW, whatever happened to his crack team of investigators that he deployed to Hawaii digging in to all this? We were *repeatedly* promised he was going to get to the bottom of Obama’s fake birth certificate. Last I heard (2012) he was just on the verge of making a YUUUGE mind-blowing announcement about that).

    Regarding the “suckers” willing to give him money, what ever happened to Shedlon Adelson and his promised $100 million? Common Sheldy, don’t you want to save your best pal Trump from further embarrassment? What about all the chumptards in the comments section here? They could cash in those shrinking 401ks and send the proceeds to Cheeto Jesus (the orange supremacist) … that is if they really loved this country and wanted to make it great again that is.

  21. Gravatar of Matthew Moore Matthew Moore
    26. June 2016 at 09:24

    Scott, maybe I am just unable to think of 52% or so of my countrymen as nationalist xenophobes, but i think it is worth reframing my point more broadly. The UK has just chosen to be governed by Westminster. Wherein, there has never in the last 100 years been a nationalist party of any significance, despite numerous attempts by the BNP and UKIP etc. to break in. Scottish nationalism is the only significant such force in the UK, and they are strongly pro-Remain.

    UKIP’s only elected MP, Douglas Carswell, is a classical liberal.

  22. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    26. June 2016 at 09:30

    On Trump’s wealth – remember that he lost his libel lawsuit against Timothy O’Brien because he refused to provide evidence that O’Brien’s claim that he was only worth $150-250 million, when Trump claimed he was worth $5 Billion. (Truth is a defense against libel). If he’s so much richer than that, why did he refuse to prove it when he initiated the lawsuit?

    Truth is a defense for O’Brien, not for Trump. It’s almost impossible to win a defamation suit if you’re a public figure or if you’ve just had your name in the papers for some reason (ask George Zimmerman). No clue why Trump bothered. The contention that Trump did not comply with discovery comes from…O’Brien himself.

    Now I do find interesting the idea that Trump has scammed the staff of Forbes for 35 years but cannot scam a reporter for The New York Times (who is relying on sources he will not reveal).

    Fred Trump did die in 1999. His son had assumed command of much of the family business by 1975 and was moving into lines his father never entered (e.g. Manhattan commercial development). Fred Trump continued working in residential development in the outer boroughs.

  23. Gravatar of Major.Freedom Major.Freedom
    26. June 2016 at 09:32

    If he’d just put the money into an index fund he would have done about as well as he’s actually done.

    This is called loser economics. Bash people for losing money on the basis of their skill, bash people for making money on the basis of their lack of skill.

    If Barry Bonds had just been a drug dealer instead of a baseball player, he would have ended up the same in terms of home run hitting ability. He started out as a young teen not being able to hit any home runs in a major league park, to getting lucky for a number of years, and then ending up right where he started in not being able to hit home runs in major league parks anymore. Obviously it was luck and not skill, because he can’t hit home runs anymore.

    I guess since Sumner is going to one day end up in a wheelchair because of old age, no longer being able to write low brow blog posts, this would be evidence that all of his ideas are to be viewed as the product of no skill at all, but rather luck and chance. After all, if skill had anything to do with it, he would be able to write low brow blog posts forever.

  24. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    26. June 2016 at 09:33

    I am just unable to think of 52% or so of my countrymen as nationalist xenophobes,

    “Nationalist xenophobe” is a cant term. You’d only call them that if you were contemptuous of them a priori. It doesn’t have any content.

  25. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    26. June 2016 at 09:35

    Scottish nationalism is the only significant such force in the UK, and they are strongly pro-Remain.

    Because Scottish particularism is lacking seriousness of mind. Which you’d know watching Nicola Sturgeon’s speech.

  26. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    26. June 2016 at 09:50

    @Negation, that matches a figure I heard Mark Cuban toss out as his guess for Trump’s available cash (upper bound, $165 million): not net worth. But that’s an interesting point you bring up. Cuban certainly has said quite a bit on the subject recently (and he’s now inclined to vote for HRC as well apparently). When asked about Trump’s 1000s of lawsuits, and allegations that he stiffs contractors, Cuban had some interesting comments. As a billionaire who in contrast to Trump filed a total of two lawsuits himself, he had this to say:
    http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/mark-cuban-on-his-relationship-with-trump-703460419620

  27. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    26. June 2016 at 09:56

    Another one decides to skip the big event:
    http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/06/26/another-high-profile-gop-representative-wont-attend-republican-convention/

    But hey, he still has Sarah Palin and Gary Busey, right? Not to mention this guy.

  28. Gravatar of FXKLM FXKLM
    26. June 2016 at 10:06

    There is no shortage of good arguments against Trump. It’s frustrating that the anti-Trump camp keeps shooting themselves in the foot by overreaching and making terrible arguments like this one.

    If Trump had taken his $40 million inheritance, invested it in an index fund, remained unmarried and lived like a pauper for 40 years, he would be roughly as wealthy as he is today. Of course that’s not what he did. He spends money like crazy and he’s gone through multiple expensive divorces. But he’s still managed to grow his wealth significantly from the amount he inherited. That means he has significantly outperformed index funds over that period.

  29. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    26. June 2016 at 10:18

    If Trump had taken his $40 million inheritance, invested it in an index fund, remained unmarried and lived like a pauper for 40 years, he would be roughly as wealthy as he is today.

    No, he’d have 20% of what Forbes estimates is his net worth.

    But hey, he still has Sarah Palin and Gary Busey, right? Not to mention this guy.

    I understand this sort of thing is fantastically interesting to you, but it’s still puerile, and you’re projecting that stupidity on everyone else here.

  30. Gravatar of Mike Sax Mike Sax
    26. June 2016 at 10:30

    “The market lost money one day. It’s not even touched the low points reached in the last 3 months. That’s your idea of ‘impact’? (And shouldn’t you be predominantly invested in bonds at your age?).”

    No, a number of Americans saw their pensions and 401Ks hurt by the hit in the pound.

    Those are Americans and there was an impact

  31. Gravatar of Mike Sax Mike Sax
    26. June 2016 at 10:32

    Let’s just hope Jennifer Rubin is right

    “The one silver lining in all this may be that Brexit and the economic instability it has already brought will help sober up the U.S. electorate. The example of economic self-destruction and avoidable hardship may help to intensify aversion to Trump. Do voters really want someone who invites and then revels in economic disaster so people will come play golf at his place? Do they really trust Trump — who along with Vladimir Putin — is cheering Europe’s turmoil? We used to be certain of the answer. Now, not so much.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/06/26/brexit-can-we-come-to-our-senses/

    George Will:

    “Trump’s campaign has less cash ($1.3 million) than some congressional candidates have, so Republican donors have never been more important than they are at this moment. They can save their party by not aiding its nominee.”

    “Events already have called his bluff about funding himself and thereby being uniquely his own man. His wealth is insufficient. Only he knows what he is hiding by being the first presidential nominee in two generations not to release his tax returns. It is reasonable to assume that the returns would refute many of his assertions about his net worth, his charitableness and his supposed business wizardry. They might also reveal some awkwardly small tax payments.”

    “”If his fear of speculation about his secrecy becomes greater than his fear of embarrassment from what he is being secretive about, he will release the returns. He should attach to them a copy of his University of Pennsylvania transcript, to confirm his claim that he got the “highest grades possible.” There are skeptics.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/republicans-save-your-party-dont-give-to-trump/2016/06/22/f56a8cda-37eb-11e6-a254-2b336e293a3c_story.html

  32. Gravatar of Mike Sax Mike Sax
    26. June 2016 at 10:37

    Just a little hint to you, Art Deco. Maybe if you spent less time always having an answer for the sake of having an answer you’d have less answers but maybe a couple of half way decent answers.

  33. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    26. June 2016 at 10:51

    Everyone, I predict the US stock market will go up or down on Monday. And when it does I predict some moron will come into the comment section and tell me that Friday’s change means nothing, because the market changed again on Monday. Count on it.

    Harding, You said:

    “This has been a Point Refuted a Thousand Times.”

    Oh really? How much money does Trump have? And how do you know that? And if he really is as rich as he says, why doesn’t he throw a billion into the campaign? Does he really care that little about America’s future?

    You said:

    “Why don’t you blame the Fed, as you usually do”

    I did blame the Fed. Don’t you know how to read?

    Art, You said:

    “The S & P 500 has increased 22 fold since 1970. If there had been index funds in 1970 and he spent flat nothing, he’d have about $900 million today. Per Forbes, his net worth is $4.5 billion.”

    You’ve never heard of re-investing dividends? Seriously? He’d have $3.4 billion with dividends. Minus taxes and expenses, maybe about $2.3 billion.

    http://www.vox.com/2015/9/2/9248963/donald-trump-index-fund

    And why cherry pick Forbes’s high estimate? Most other estimates are lower. Bloomberg says 2.9 billion. How does Forbes know how much he has? And why won’t Trump show us? Perhaps because he lied about his wealth, like he lies about everything else?

    You said:

    “That’s your idea of ‘impact’? (And shouldn’t you be predominantly invested in bonds at your age?).”

    OK, so you also know nothing about event studies. You might want to take a course in finance before making a fool of yourself.

    As far as my investments, I don’t ever plan to sell by stocks, so I see no reason to switch to bonds.

    You said:

    “Lewis Amselem, who had 35 years in the Foreign Service, is a qualified Trump supporter. ”

    So why does Trump think Louis is an idiot?

    Matthew, You said:

    “Scott, maybe I am just unable to think of 52% or so of my countrymen as nationalist xenophobes,”

    I didn’t say they were, indeed I said there was a classical liberal argument for Brexit. But I don’t think 52% of your countrymen are motivated by classical liberalism.

    And is classical liberalism in the UK strongest among the least well educated?

  34. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    26. June 2016 at 11:08

    Just a little hint to you, Art Deco. Maybe if you spent less time always having an answer for the sake of having an answer

    Mike, I cannot help it if you cannot understand my answers. I write in plain English.

  35. Gravatar of Major.Freedom Major.Freedom
    26. June 2016 at 11:51

    “Everyone, I predict the US stock market will go up or down on Monday. And when it does I predict some moron will come into the comment section and tell me that Friday’s change means nothing, because the market changed again on Monday. Count on it.”

    Everyone, I predict Sumner will never understand the process of price discovery, whereby initial reactions to Friday’s change may not have been as accurate as it could have been with the benefit of the additional information such initial reactions presented, such that he will perceive any and all changes starting Monday as completely disconnected from what happened Friday.

    Count on it.

  36. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    26. June 2016 at 13:38

    “Lewis Amselem, who had 35 years in the Foreign Service, is a qualified Trump supporter.”

    I had to look him up, but idiot or not, he does appear to have the MO of a Trump supporter.

  37. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    26. June 2016 at 14:17

    “why doesn’t he throw a billion into the campaign?”

    -Because Rmoney. Adelson. Bush. Sanders. Money doesn’t matter much these days. Adamsite persuasion does.

    “I did blame the Fed. Don’t you know how to read?”

    -There is not a single mention of the Fed or central banks in this post. Only of Brexit negatively affecting stock prices. How can I read something you didn’t write?

    “How much money does Trump have?”

    -More than you.

    “And how do you know that?”

    -Your name isn’t plastered over a single plane, hotel, or casino. Not even a steak.

  38. Gravatar of Matthew Moore Matthew Moore
    26. June 2016 at 14:29

    Scott, I realise you didn’t say that, I was just trying to acknowledge that I might be suffering from cognitive dissonance.

    Actually, I do think that the least well educated in the UK are more classically liberal than the educated. Obviously they don’t think of it that way. But they are much more likely to say, let each take care of his own, govenrment causes more problems than it solves, mind your own business and let me mind mine, I don’t mind a man who gets ahead by graft (‘hard work’ here), politicians are all just in it for themselves etc.

    The educated are much more progressive, in the sense of favouring mass intervention and technocracy, and having generally magically thinking about the effectiveness of big bureaucracy .

    Below is Johnson’s latest column in the Telegraph. He is no Trump. There are undoubtedly xenophobes who supported Brexit. But the vast majority are just those who want to be left alone.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/26/i-cannot-stress-too-much-that-britain-is-part-of-europe–and-alw/

  39. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    26. June 2016 at 15:52

    “And when it does I predict some moron will come into the comment section and tell me that Friday’s change means nothing, because the market changed again on Monday.”

    -Who knows? It might be meaningful. It might be meaningless. It all depends on lots of factors. I concur that the market will go either up or down tomorrow.

  40. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    26. June 2016 at 16:31

    He is no Trump. There are undoubtedly xenophobes who supported Brexit. But the vast majority are just those who want to be left alone.

    Jose Francia is dead. Pol Pot is dead. No one wants to visit North Korea anyway. There are no xenophobes outside your head.

  41. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    26. June 2016 at 16:32

    And when it does I predict some moron will come into the comment section and tell me that Friday’s change means nothing,

    No some non-moron will tell you it likely means nothing much because the market fluctuates all the time.

  42. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    27. June 2016 at 06:23

    Harding, You said:

    “How much money does Trump have?”

    -More than you.”

    I’ll take that as you conceding my point–you have no idea how much money Trump has. Thank you.

    Matthew, I agree that Boris Johnson is no Trump, indeed he’d probably be a decent Prime Minister. I’d vastly prefer him to either Trump or Hillary.

    I still think the vote was driven by opposition to immigration.

  43. Gravatar of Matthew Moore Matthew Moore
    27. June 2016 at 08:56

    Scott,

    Happily there is now some data on this (admittedly, self-reported):

    “Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the EU was “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”. One third (33%) said the main reason was that leaving “offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders.” Just over one in eight (13%) said remaining would mean having no choice “about how the EU expanded its membership or its powers in the years ahead.” Only just over one in twenty (6%) said their main reason was that “when it comes to trade and the economy, the UK would benefit more from being outside the EU than from being part of it.”

    http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/

  44. Gravatar of Doug m Doug m
    27. June 2016 at 10:09

    “The S & P 500 has increased 22 fold since 1970. If there had been index funds in 1970 and he spent flat nothing, he’d have about $900 million today. Per Forbes, his net worth is $4.5 billion.”

    S&P is up 80x since 1974 with reinvested dividends per Bloomberg. 40 million * 80 = 3.2 billion.

    But that would still require never drawing on that money to support his lifestyle.

    Not paying taxes.

    and

    Never getting Married — and Divorced.

  45. Gravatar of RN RN
    27. June 2016 at 17:49

    Your economics is consistently both arrogant yet ignorant, but I love your takes on Trump!

  46. Gravatar of Larry Larry
    27. June 2016 at 18:26

    Still counting on Preet and Loretta to come through for us after the conventions when we have Veep candidates. Once Hillary and Donald are indicted, they withdraw and we get to fall back on the Veeps. It’s almost guaranteed to be an upgrade for both parties.

  47. Gravatar of Saturos Saturos
    28. June 2016 at 03:03

    Hold on, at least Trump isn’t a violent criminal, like someone who would engage in rape or assault… oh, wait.

  48. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    28. June 2016 at 04:12

    S&P is up 80x since 1974 with reinvested dividends per Bloomberg. 40 million * 80 = 3.2 billion.

    http://www.multpl.com/s-p-500-historical-prices/table/by-year

    The S & P has increased 22 fold since 1970. It has increased 80-fold since 1954. I don’t think Trump was precocious enough to be running construction projects when he was 8 years old.

  49. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    28. June 2016 at 08:58

    Matthew, Maybe, but I’m skeptical of polls. Let me ask you this: Suppose you ask people whether their opposition to the EU was based on “principle” or based on that fact that they don’t like immigrants. How would most people respond? Now reread those options offered to voters, and consider which answer “sounds better”.

    Do many UK voters even know which regulations are required by the EU, and which are domestic decisions?

    Art, Still struggling with finance concepts, eh?

    Doug, Unlike Art, at least you understand reinvested dividends, but I think you and others are missing the biggest point here. He started with $40 million from his dad, which was a lot of money in 1974. He’s been operating in a market (NYC real estate) that has massively outperformed other investments in recent decades. He’s been highly leveraged. Maybe he’s done a bit better than the S&P500, but he should have done massively better. He’s like a leveraged tech investor who did “OK” in the 1990s—how could he not have astronomical returns?

    Lots of his “consumption” is luxury NYC condos, which actually turned out to be good investments. I still say he was lucky to be in the right place, at the right time, with a dad who gave him $40 million.

    RN, Don’t you have it backwards? My Trump posts are junk, and my money posts are (occasionally) good.

  50. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    28. June 2016 at 10:32

    Art, Still struggling with finance concepts, eh?

    No more than you’re struggling with the concept that Trump might have living expenses and pay taxes.

  51. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    28. June 2016 at 10:35

    He’s been operating in a market (NYC real estate) that has massively outperformed other investments in recent decades.

    You keep saying that, but there are only 3 real estate investors in the NYC market with assets which exceed those of Trump.

  52. Gravatar of Matthew Waters Matthew Waters
    28. June 2016 at 12:35

    What’s funny about using the 1988 figure is absolutely everyone agrees that Trump had a negative wealth a few years later. He relied on loans from his siblings and his father bought a million dollars of chips at a casino to make a loan payment.

    In the O’brien case, he had many confusing, evasive answers on how he values his wealth, admitting that it’s based on feelings. Since his actual wealth is mostly illiquid real estate assets, he has the same biases as most homeowners in valuing their home. For his FEC filings arriving at an 8 billion wealth, that included a 4 billion valuation of his own brand.

    Fortune did some digging into the FEC report. For two properties, Trump jointly owns the properties with a public company which disclose the true debt of the building. Trump’s net equity value of his holding made no sense. He either did not net out the encumbrance of his percentage stake or wildly overvalued the value of the properties. Meanwhile, for personal income, he listed all of the revenue of his golf courses, hotels, etc. before costs.

    There are other indications like selling some of his portfolio for his campaign, rather than having liquid assets to fund it. His real wealth probably is in the hundreds of millions or just above a billion dollars, at the most.

    http://fortune.com/2016/03/23/donald-trump-debt/

  53. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    28. June 2016 at 15:11

    Matthew Waters, if I’m interpreting your author correctly (there is the article you reference and a previous one), he thinks Trump might have a net worth of about $2.4 bn.

    I’m reviewing in a quick-and-dirty way the Forbes 400 list from a few years back (it’s conveniently formatted, which the most recent was not), and I’m seeing 240 names with a net worth in excess of $2.4 bn. Forbes lists a source of their wealth for each. For about 10% on the list ‘investments’ is the source listed or one of two sources listed. Now, looking at some capsule biographies of these people, it appears that generally means they’ve bought and sold companies over the years. I cannot find many examples of unadulterated portfolio investment (there are three brothers named Ziff). Perhaps someone did something as passive as put money in an index fund or some equivalent and forget about it. By all appearances, that’s very unusual in this set of people.

    Why am I not seeing a mass of portfolio investors in that set if it’s such a simple thing to do?

  54. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    29. June 2016 at 05:45

    Art, How many New Yorkers had their daddy give them $40 million in 1974, and then chose to devote their life to investing in NYC real estate?

  55. Gravatar of Justin Justin
    29. June 2016 at 06:30

    Scott, I wonder if you have any self-knowledge at all. You suffer from serious confirmation bias vis-a-vis Trump. You vacuum up data which support your caricatured picture of him, but never update that picture with data which don’t support the prior. If you were able to observe your own thinking process and prejudices, you’d be aware of this problem and at least build better propaganda, if perhaps not revise those prejudices.

  56. Gravatar of Matthew Waters Matthew Waters
    29. June 2016 at 07:20

    The Fortune article didn’t give a total accounting of his debt. The other articles arriving at 2.5 to 4 billion summed up the total value of his properties based on comps and opinions of real estate brokers. If Trump is simply not disclosing encumbrances on the properties, his actual worth would be much less.

  57. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    29. June 2016 at 08:25

    The Fortune article didn’t give a total accounting of his debt.

    The previous article gave this author’s estimate of his income and this author’s assessment of what the yield on his assets should be.

  58. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    29. June 2016 at 08:33

    Art, How many New Yorkers had their daddy give them $40 million in 1974, and then chose to devote their life to investing in NYC real estate?

    How would I know? It’s not as if there is a database of such things.

    Forbes undertook a retrospective in 2012, noting that 36 people on their 1982 inaugural list were still on the list in 2012, including Trump. Over that time, the mean holdings of these 36 had increased 20-fold in nominal terms. You’re insisting that they should have increased at least as fast as the S & P conjoined to common dividend yields. However, that would imply a 23-fold increase in net worth over those 30 years. I guess quite a mess of persistently wealthy people ‘aren’t very good businessmen. I’m still awaiting your list of super-rich portfolio investors.

  59. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    29. June 2016 at 14:24

    One other thing. That Forbes list of the persistently wealthy includes 5 other real-estate developers: Donald Bren, Kirk Kerkorian, Sheldon Solow, Leonard Stern, Alfred Taubman, and Mortimer Zuckerman. Their rates of asset appreciation over that time ranged from 6 fold to 35 fold (Trump is assessed as having had a 31 fold appreciation). Solow is listed as having a similar net worth to Trump in 1982 with the rest wealthier.

Leave a Reply