hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jan 13, 2020 15:53:33 GMT -5
I'm not sure you can argue that his style is excessively risky just because he has been in bankruptcy multiple times. Growing business to be very large requires lots of risk, therefore a "normal" risk aversion for someone looking to grow multiple business to be very large should be high even at a normal level. I do think he seems excessively risky, but I don't think it's because of bankruptcy or anything like that. I think it's because he comes specifically from an area which rewards a normal risk aversion which is MUCH higher than what a normal risk aversion would be in something like foreign relations. Even if he had zero bankruptcies, his risk management for growing businesses would likely be much higher naturally than what should be reasonable for government. It's the fundamental problem I have whenever someone in the private sector says something akin to "I ran a super successful business, and I'd run the government the same way". You SHOULDN'T, the government is not an individual business! People don't become successful growing businesses the same way that a government should be responsibly run. I could have left the BK thing out. I am just using that to, well frankly, to slur the guy. But I do think that six bankruptcies is a flag for management problems as well. I get that it is very risky to start and grow multiple businesses. I also think that starting off with a solid capital base and yet still driving debt to bankruptcy inducing levels is excessively reckless. And, poor management. I think I agree with your second point. I believe you are saying that foreign policy should be conducted in a more risk averse environment than entrepreneurial capitalism. Yes, absolutely!Not just foreign policy, but really ALL government. I'm hard-pressed to think of any area of the government that should be run with the risk aversion of a startup (or rapidly growing, or the goal of a rapidly growing, business). I can certainly see some parallels between running a big hulking company whose goal is primarily safety of their current position (i.e. low risk, goal of maintaining the entity, etc). Maybe there are some small sectors of government that could stand some more risk because the program is small, but for the most part government is a big hulking entity (entities) and risking their dissolution or financial ruin accidentally is a much bigger deal than running a startup into the ground (especially if you have many many companies yourself where the goal is to shoot 100 companies for the moon and hope 3 of them hit).
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,388
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 14, 2020 0:11:56 GMT -5
Hmmmmm. Barr and Pompeo shift justification for Iran strike from 'imminent' threat to deterrenceWashington (CNN) Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Attorney General William Barr said Monday that killing Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani was part of a larger strategy of deterrence, a shift from the Trump administration's previous rationale that the strike was carried out to prevent an "imminent" attack. Barr's comments were particularly noteworthy as he attempted to push back on criticism over the administration's claim that Soleimani was planning attacks that posed an imminent threat, calling the concept "something of a red herring." Trump administration officials have issued confusing explanations, contradicting each other about how imminent a threat the Iranian general posed, whether they had specific intelligence on the threat and even what that threat was, with Trump saying one thing, then another, while officials offered varying explanations. Complete article here: Barr and Pompeo shift justification for Iran strike from 'imminent' threat to deterrence
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,051
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 14, 2020 0:44:58 GMT -5
it is a war crime to commit murder to deter people.
sorry, but it just is.
this is an admission that would land them in the gallows in a just world.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,207
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Jan 14, 2020 8:26:07 GMT -5
it is a war crime to commit murder to deter people. sorry, but it just is. this is an admission that would land them in the gallows in a just world. Nothing is a war crime when you're a rich white old dude with an army of fellow rich white old dudes willing to lick your boots. Benghazi on the other hand. . .well we need at least 8 more investigations into that.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Jan 14, 2020 10:20:24 GMT -5
it is a war crime to commit murder to deter people. sorry, but it just is. this is an admission that would land them in the gallows in a just world. Police Depts??
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jan 14, 2020 11:31:10 GMT -5
No, of course trump is not directly responsible. However it was an indirect result from the action that he took. Nevertheless, this may end up going wither way at this point, and it could strengthen the US position vis a vis Iran, though it has caused diplomatic ripples throughout the countries of the Middle East, none of whom are comfortable with the scenario of American forces operating in such a way in their lands. What bothers me though, regardless of how this one "incident" plays out is the reckless and dangerous path for militaristic adventurism that is being pursued. The risk of miscalculation and escalation is very high. Threatening "rocket man" with fire and brimstone was painless. The Suleimani gambit may have worked, and possibly quite well. Sooner or later however, the luck will run out. It always does with military adventurism. Well executed missions that are successful, have little luck involved. This was planned quite some time ago. One could say that luck is involved with simple appeasement also. So, this was planned some time ago? Do you mean to say that the attacks by Soleimani were imminent months and months ago? That doesn't make any sense.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,306
|
Post by swamp on Jan 14, 2020 12:27:16 GMT -5
SIX! Bankrupt six times and still standing. Well, I guess that is an accomplishment of sorts! it is all part of gaming the system.
he took banks for about $1B in those six bankruptcies. which is why only Douche Bank will lend him money now.
now he is gaming the government, and his minions are cheering it.
#sick
|
|