Of course not. He's tougher and smarter than they are, and he will never ever fold. And if/when the scheme falls apart, he walks away with the money and somebody else is stuck with the tab. So much winning, as Yogi Berra used to say.
For someone as corrupt as Trump, as shown in the study (I'm missing the link, but you've probably seen it already) where GOP-supporting companies that donated to Republicans were more often exempted from tariffs than Democratic-supporting companies, this is all good, simply a win-win for him. Trump likes to grift, and he has been enabled by Republicans from every dipshit GOP voting fool at the lowest bottom of the bottom to every dipshit FedSoc judge at the very top of the scum at the bottom.
Indeed, I probably read about that in your work from yesterday, too! Yes, that was Trump I, and now that Trump himself knows (as much as his pea brain can know anything) how government works, I think he will demand his "cut of the action" in Trump II, if he hasn't already. Maybe you've noticed just how much he can't stand competition in the area of corruption, like in the recent "investigation" of Boris Epshteyn?
Did you look at the article I linked? It's a report of a formal study of a big sample of companies. Apple is an unusual company, so important that Tim Cook's relationships with US presidents are a little like those of the president of Turkey or whatever. I certainly don't know that he's a Democrat, I know he has liberal views on civil rights, but he cultivates a personal relationship with Trump https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/20/politics/tim-cook-donald-trump-apple-tour-austin-texas/index.html
I had missed it before but I’ve now read it. But I still think my point is largely true. If not entirely true now, it’s certainly shifting in that direction. When presidential administrations start supporting or punishing certain companies based on campaign support, it’s inevitable that CEOs will adopt strategies to adapt to this changing reality.
For example, they could :
(1)Contribute to both parties (similar to how Zelensky and Netanyahu met with both Trump and Harris). I believe I read that many companies hedge their bets in precisely this manner.
(2) Keep their donations to a particular party or candidates private. For example, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet used to be vocal supporters of Democrats in the past and while I think they have both contributed to Democrats this year, maybe via third parties, they certainly haven’t been very public about it.
(3) Wait to endorse or support a party until it seems likely that a particular candidate will win. Or support them after the fact. You can call this the “Jeff Bezos” strategy or in a less corporate way, the “Morning Joe” method.
In any case, my point was that if you have a situation where a ruler *can and will* reward or punish certain corporations or industries based on calculations of personal gain, then you will necessarily change ideological institutions in to transactional ones.
You make the incentive for decisions less about what’s in the long term best interest of everyone involved and more about what’s in your personal short-term (usually economic) interest. When you make a democracy function like a marketplace, you inevitably emphasize the value of “green” over “red or blue”(ie monetary gain over political or philosophical ideology)
Congrats on the poem, by the way. If there was ever a question about what you, Yaz, have in common with the lyricist Neil Peart, late of the band RUSH, it could be experimentation in this form of poetry: the Villanelle?
Imagines he's helping? Maybe, but its more in line with his negotiation strategy: threaten and bluff, then walk away and pull the trigger on the threat (or offer another 1-sided option) if the other side doesn't collapse. Right now its all threat , he can't do anything until Jan. And he and Vanky have people to deal with the boring implementation details. He's probably generally aware from their businesses because it's his money, but if he's not forced to pay its not his problem. He always imagines the other side will always fold or give up if he makes it painful enough, whether he's throwing lawyers or tarrifs at a problem. Plus, he wants praise for helping, not to actually help.
And the poem is a banger. Repetition breeds familiarity and is a powerful tool.
Yeah. Instead of doing real work The Man From Queens heaves a buncha shit on the rug and expects everyone to either bow to his superior nastiness or at least race to clean up the mess. Lazy man's dream.
That "easy to win" from the narcissist-in-chief, who can't imagine that it's no less easy for the other team, and they might well win instead.
Of course not. He's tougher and smarter than they are, and he will never ever fold. And if/when the scheme falls apart, he walks away with the money and somebody else is stuck with the tab. So much winning, as Yogi Berra used to say.
For someone as corrupt as Trump, as shown in the study (I'm missing the link, but you've probably seen it already) where GOP-supporting companies that donated to Republicans were more often exempted from tariffs than Democratic-supporting companies, this is all good, simply a win-win for him. Trump likes to grift, and he has been enabled by Republicans from every dipshit GOP voting fool at the lowest bottom of the bottom to every dipshit FedSoc judge at the very top of the scum at the bottom.
I ran into it yesterday https://www2.lehigh.edu/news/politically-connected-corporations-received-more-exemptions-from-us-tariffs-on-chinese-imports It seems his team was also punishing the Democratic supporters, rejecting the exemption requests. Looks more like political tricks to me than simple personal grift.
Indeed, I probably read about that in your work from yesterday, too! Yes, that was Trump I, and now that Trump himself knows (as much as his pea brain can know anything) how government works, I think he will demand his "cut of the action" in Trump II, if he hasn't already. Maybe you've noticed just how much he can't stand competition in the area of corruption, like in the recent "investigation" of Boris Epshteyn?
It’s not limited to “GOP companies”. Prior loyalty to red or blue becomes irrelevant when “green” is involved.
https://fortune.com/2024/07/18/tim-cook-apple-donald-trump-tariff/
Did you look at the article I linked? It's a report of a formal study of a big sample of companies. Apple is an unusual company, so important that Tim Cook's relationships with US presidents are a little like those of the president of Turkey or whatever. I certainly don't know that he's a Democrat, I know he has liberal views on civil rights, but he cultivates a personal relationship with Trump https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/20/politics/tim-cook-donald-trump-apple-tour-austin-texas/index.html
I had missed it before but I’ve now read it. But I still think my point is largely true. If not entirely true now, it’s certainly shifting in that direction. When presidential administrations start supporting or punishing certain companies based on campaign support, it’s inevitable that CEOs will adopt strategies to adapt to this changing reality.
For example, they could :
(1)Contribute to both parties (similar to how Zelensky and Netanyahu met with both Trump and Harris). I believe I read that many companies hedge their bets in precisely this manner.
(2) Keep their donations to a particular party or candidates private. For example, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet used to be vocal supporters of Democrats in the past and while I think they have both contributed to Democrats this year, maybe via third parties, they certainly haven’t been very public about it.
(3) Wait to endorse or support a party until it seems likely that a particular candidate will win. Or support them after the fact. You can call this the “Jeff Bezos” strategy or in a less corporate way, the “Morning Joe” method.
In any case, my point was that if you have a situation where a ruler *can and will* reward or punish certain corporations or industries based on calculations of personal gain, then you will necessarily change ideological institutions in to transactional ones.
You make the incentive for decisions less about what’s in the long term best interest of everyone involved and more about what’s in your personal short-term (usually economic) interest. When you make a democracy function like a marketplace, you inevitably emphasize the value of “green” over “red or blue”(ie monetary gain over political or philosophical ideology)
2 marks.
Does Krugman do villanelles?
If not, I'm outta there.
Congrats on the poem, by the way. If there was ever a question about what you, Yaz, have in common with the lyricist Neil Peart, late of the band RUSH, it could be experimentation in this form of poetry: the Villanelle?
I knew there must. be something
I'm thinking more Lenoard Cohen, or maybe Sonny Bono.
Men still keep on marchin off to war
'Lectric'ly they keep a a baseball score.
And the beat goes on.
Imagines he's helping? Maybe, but its more in line with his negotiation strategy: threaten and bluff, then walk away and pull the trigger on the threat (or offer another 1-sided option) if the other side doesn't collapse. Right now its all threat , he can't do anything until Jan. And he and Vanky have people to deal with the boring implementation details. He's probably generally aware from their businesses because it's his money, but if he's not forced to pay its not his problem. He always imagines the other side will always fold or give up if he makes it painful enough, whether he's throwing lawyers or tarrifs at a problem. Plus, he wants praise for helping, not to actually help.
And the poem is a banger. Repetition breeds familiarity and is a powerful tool.
Yeah. Instead of doing real work The Man From Queens heaves a buncha shit on the rug and expects everyone to either bow to his superior nastiness or at least race to clean up the mess. Lazy man's dream.