There is an obsession in the liberal press about Donald Trump's opaque personal finances and the repeated appearance that he has a conflict of interest.
I am obsessed too. But I want him to have more conflicts.
I want a Trump Tower paying royalties to the Donald in every country that matters, indeed in most cities. I want them in countries that do not matter. Frankly I would love them all over China, India and Pakistan.
If the Donald leaves office safely with 100 billion dollar net worth it would be just fine with me.
--
You see if the Donald has economic interests in some country he will not wind up on any ill-advised military adventures there. Indeed he would tend to prefer open economic relations, as much as anything so he can get his cash out.
Trump corruption is wonderful then because it preserves the open and (relatively) peaceful world I like.
So please Donald - more conflicts of interest - big international conflicts of interest. I want them yuuuge.
Make me happy.
John
14 comments:
The problem is the equilibrium.
Whole heartedly agree - Chappietx
Look at it from different angles. Too long to explain but maybe this video gives you an idea of what I mean
http://www.jacquespauwels.net/how-corporate-america-supported-nazi-germany/
There's a lot of money to be made (scammed) in war, and insurance can cover any damage to his property.
I think your approach has merit, but would suggest it would be most effective if Trumps overseas revenue generators aren't emblazoned with his own name, as that will make them targets of (for example) people being rude about them on twitter.
It's certainly a better prospect that La Clinton being bribed to fight other countries' wars for them.
But I admit to being puzzled at to what NZ thought it was buying with its donation. Maybe just a promise not to invade it?
Don't be so sanguine. This is a man with four bankruptcies under his belt.
Hi John
Funny - I was thinking along similar lines. However, I would suggest that his concern for his properties might be limited to their immediate environs. So he won't bomb Moscow but Magnitogorsk - sorry - you're s**t out of luck. Toronto, you're probably O.K. but Timbuktu?
As for the $100B number, I would suggest that Putin could probably buy Trump's loyalty for $30-$40 B. I mean ... it's a deal, right? A yuge deal!
A month ago Trump Org sent investors to Taiwan. Now Trump calls their president, pissing off China. With regard ot getting us into conflicts, conflicts can cut both ways.
I'm sorry but this line of thinking is very ill advised. Business interests in foreign countries have been protected by military force throughout history. Much of the history has been bloody! Please check your facts.
...the word the Drumpf world revolves around is "Baksheesh."
You're assuming the Donald is long. What if he's short - structurally or otherwise - does he have an incentive to start a war or end it? (Is the Donald solvent without some made-up number for goodwill and future revenues?) What if he's a monopolist at heart (fancy hotels in war zones can do surprisingly well hosting the hated media, after all)? Will his hotels (or the ones named Trump) just be the only ones left because they're the only ones effectively being guarded/protected by the American military?
This is one of your most ill-advised posts ever. In fact, probably the first one of yours I've ever outright disagreed with.
That said, worth thinking about. Just that after thinking about it, it does not stand up to scrutiny.
Give me a break John, I don't remember any admonitions from you about Obama wreacking havoc abroad.
See Syria
That is good first level thinking; lets try to expand that to view the third level outcomes. Perhaps use Jakob Fugger as an example; or perhaps the Qaddafi family who also had arguably 200B squirrelled away around the world. Both encouraged peace and prosperity to protect their interests.
Give that same man who has a love of personal wealth (not american greatness surprisingly) access to the nuclear codes; lets see what kind of deal he can structure now with his banks and world leaders. Heck. Who needs debt financing. Just sign the asset over and sort out the payment after. I believe they call this 'zero-down' financing.
This would work if it was a rational thinker who realises that his bankruptcies or public humiliations using 'likes' in the court of twitter actually lead to sometimes dire consequences for those on the receiving end of his value capture.
I am excited about a trump presidency, but i think when you encourage nepotism with Jared K independently running a blind trust.
I am not going to finish that thought bubble.
Post a Comment