I predict this is no more than a sunshine squad for PR reasons. Trump met with Al Gore for many hours as well, then nominated the most ardent climate change denier as head of the EPA the next day. As long as that kind of thing doesn't change (e.g. Trump literally comes out and says, "OK, I was wrong, I finally believe in climate change"), there's nothing here.
Particularly when it says, “meet with the President frequently to share their specific experience and knowledge as the President implements his economic agenda.” - this is a man too lazy and detached to even be interested in his own intelligence briefings (http://www.npr.org/2016/12/13/505348507/what-exactly-is-the-...). All evidence so far points to him not caring at all what new ideas this panel brings, if even paying attention at all.
He said he doesn't need to dedicate time to have people tell him the exact same thing everyday, but to let him know when things change. If anything, that's an efficiency gain that a site full of programmers and avid "meetings are the devil" folks should appreciate. Every time that gets cited right now it roughly translates to "person who only reads headlines."
I imagine it is somewhat frustrating to hear,
Analyst A: "We have more developments in how the Russian intelligence operation helped in securing your election, sir."
Trump: "I don't believe that happened, next subject!"
Analyst B: "Sir we have more corroboration that the Russians were involved in the election as bad actors."
Trump: "You're fired!"
I don't believe that every president before Trump simply put up with redundant meetings. This is the busiest job in the world, presidents are intelligent people, somebody would have put an end to daily security briefings if they weren't useful before now.
Trump has spent a lifetime fighting contractors and trying to keep projects within budget. Maybe Musk and Bezos can persuade him to expand the use of fixed-price "space act agreements" at NASA (like those previously won by SpaceX and Blue Origin for CCDev) instead of the traditional cost-plus contracts. Trump has recently tweeted about Pentagon projects going over budget; maybe he can be persuaded to push the fixed-price model there as well.
He is a business man who takes business decisions. He cares not who is in the white house, provided he has access and he can benefit from this. He certainly will.
But that said, this is just noise anyway. It's not like these guys, however much we like them, will have any say in policy.
Are you or anyone you know a completely one-dimensional person? Do you have the capacity to learn just one (and no more) topic?
Stop acting like people can't learn or have multiple passions/knowledge domains.
Please, there's absolutely nothing special or unattainable about politicians. If anything, they are the people who are most trained, set in their ways and corrupted in the most corrupted system humanity has known.
I welcome any and all outsiders.
The cynic in me says this is entirely about PR, but if it's not, this is a suprisingly positive step in the right direction.
I'm not sure what to make of it and wonder what will come of it.
I don't know if having this spectrum of people is a strategic move on Trumps part for some deeper purpose or if it's just because they believe the things he believes and he's trying to make for an easy political life.
I guess in the long run, we shall see.
Of course real cynics will yell too much power is being given to business people.
People keep saying Trump's cabinet and team is "business leaders and political outsiders" when it's hard to imagine people more "inside" than lobbyists.
Distraction accomplished.
> Of course real cynics will yell too much power is being given to business people.
Real cynics will point to the evident factional politics in the substantive appointments and that the thing you are giving so much weight to is a powerless advisory body.
“I think a bit strongly that Trump is probably not the right guy” for the presidency, and wouldn't be the best candidate to represent the U.S. abroad, he told CNBC.
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s economic and environmental policies “are the right ones,” Musk said.
From: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/elon-musk-on-donald-trump-j...
It would be one thing to prefer one candidate over the other.
But Musk's remarks are very strong.
Basically: "This man is not qualified for the job" is a very string rebuke.
And then to go on his panel? It's a little hypocritical.
Trump knows that these guys value their careers more than their credibility, and he's making Elon Musk, Mitt Romney etc. 'kiss the ring' and 'eat their own words'.
They will likely have to say positive things about Trump in the future, coming out of meetings etc..
I'm by not means a Trump fan but there are shades of brilliant Machiavellian bits about this.
Elon Musk and Travis Kalanick are both admirers of Ayn Rand and likely supporters of Donald Trump (although they probably couldn't express their support prior to November 8th).
Musk is a much more surprising choice, not just because of his obvious environmentalism. Both Kalanick and Musk are well-known for not being very worker friendly. At least Musk leads by example. He destroyed his own marriage through overwork and expects his employees to do the same.
It's not like he was a mid level white collar exec staying too long at the office.
Hopefully won't be an illusion and this would change my perception of Musk. I really hope it won't... really....
I thought we were on a one week long hiatus from this crap.
Please, down vote this article if you have the ability.
IMHO This is pretty relevant stuff for anyone interested in the future of the companies these men run.
I agree in general. But when Auschwitz survivors make the Hitler comparison up we should listen. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-the-age-of-trump-...
Not only did Trump talk plenty about his policy ideas and followers notably chose him based on these policies, Trump's views have never been expressly "liberal".
Furthermore, plenty of people have predicted exactly how Trump would turn out. During the race, the left media continually argued that Trump would be appointing "1%ers" to his cabinet, and that is exactly what has happened.
As for his "playbook", he clearly doesn't have one, and this has been consistently stated by opponents. But he's still as predictable as any other politician. This myth that he is somehow unpredictable is absurd. It's pretty clear exactly how he intends to run this country.
There's indeed a good chance that none of the doom and gloom will play out. Silicon Valley excels at "failing fast", and the latest signs are showing they're adjusting quickly already.
(Yeah sure downvote me all you want, gneeeh!)
You really think the likes of Musk and Bezos can't sleep at night because of risk to their careers? These guys don't worry about credibility because they make their own credibility. This is more of a position of "I'm a captain of industry, if the President wants to call me to ask a question, I'll take the call". Doing so is both good business (good for their businesses at least), and is compatible with a position of "this man is not qualified for the job", because "that's why he's got me on his advisory board". If anything, it's a subtle, shrewd move on the part of Musk.
It's a lot more mild than the statements made by politicians to whom Trump has granted substantive positions.
It has simply given the governor more power.
The policy ideas appear in hindsight to be inflaming rhetoric. Make deals, build a wall, and deport people in the US illegally. The funny part is that those things are exactly what is happening today. Maybe the deals will be different, but there is already a fence across large parts of the Mexican border (fun aside, Obama and Hilary voted yes for it as senators[2][3]), and under Obama more people have been deported than ever before[4]. So really, no change.
Appointing DC elite and/or 1%ers to cabinet positions is basically par for the course. Maybe Sanders would have appointed more normal people?
I hate being put in a position to defend Trump because I think he also has tons of problems. But, this is who we have for the next 4 years so I'm going to watch what happens and hope it's more good than bad.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/09/th...
[2] http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2016/aug/15/d...
[3] https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/109-2006/s262
[4] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/...
1. WP article reads like a "top 10" clickbait article. Only a few things in that list are accurately associated with economic or social liberalism. Liking Hillary Clinton doesn't make you a liberal, for example. The press thing at the end is also absurd.
2. Being right about Hillary Clinton's wall thing doesn't make you a liberal. I don't know why you included this.
3. ??? See #2.
4. Once again, Obama or Hillary being less "liberal" doesn't make Trump more liberal.
>The policy ideas appear in hindsight to be inflaming rhetoric. Make deals, build a wall, and deport people in the US illegally. The funny part is that those things are exactly what is happening today. Maybe the deals will be different, but there is already a fence across large parts of the Mexican border (fun aside, Obama and Hilary voted yes for it as senators[2][3]), and under Obama more people have been deported than ever before[4]. So really, no change.
and
> Appointing DC elite and/or 1%ers to cabinet positions is basically par for the course. Maybe Sanders would have appointed more normal people?
Yea, which is the point: he is actually totally predictable, and like I said, the junk about him being hard to predict is nonsense. You said he was unpredictable... but now you're disagreeing with yourself? I'm super confused on what you're trying to say.
Also, for every bribee in politics there's a briber as well.
corruption - dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power.
CEOs and other decision makers of companies certainly have power. Several of them have hid the side effects of their products to continue making money.
I would call that being corrupt.
The reason for this is humans naturally sort themselves into hierarchies and people will always strive to better their position in those hierarchies. With better position comes better chance at survival for you and future generations of you.
Money helps in the climb up the hierarchy, but it's not sufficient in most cases. Most climbs require power. Money can sometimes buy power, but it's not nearly as effective as trading favors, forging political alliances and manipulating people through blackmail.
Money influences power outside of capitalist systems as well. CGP Grey's video 'Rules for Rulers'[0] does a great job of illustrating why.
ONE DAY RECORD: 87 tweets OCT. 18, 2016
AVG. TWEETS PER DAY: 11
If only Trump worked harder, I guess.
The more people dismiss corruption as normal in the government the more corrupt it will be.
Musk or Trump? :)
Musk might be liberal on some kind of social issues, but he's more of a libertarian than anything, he's not remotely some kind of 'bernie' guy.
Musk told his wife, as they were having their 'first dance at the wedding' - that 'he's the alpha' in the relationship. Does that sound progressive? Or how about dumping his wife who bore 5 children for a girl 1/2 his age? Prog cred?
Also " very staunch flat earth, climate denial, intelligent design type conservatives "
... this is casual bigotry on your part. 'Flat Earth'? Seriously? You're just going to throw that in?
And you do realize it was Father David LeMaitre - a Catholic Priest and Physicist, who conceived of the 'big bang'?
Anyhow - I'm not going to defend any of that necessarily, but your remarks amount to a casual kind of bigotry which is the bane of political discussion these days. Try to avoid this crude kind of stuff.
And FYI Trump was a 'NYC tough-guy Democrat' for most of his life. The Clinton's went to his and Melania's wedding for gosh sakes.
Anyhow - neither Trump nor Musk could truly be considered classically liberal or conservative in either sense of the term.
Funny: both of them are good businessmen, but neither of them have the faintest grasp of economics.
Also, as long as people don't reject Flat-earth, climate-denial, or intelligent design, they are condoning those things. The Republican party have been masters of allowing these beliefs to come along for the ride for years. 2 of them seem to be rooted in religious freedom, and can be safely left out of political discourse. the 3rd, climate change denial, needs to be discussed, and needs to be handled on the basis of facts instead of beliefs.
And it's surprising how many CEO's in tech don't have a grasp of economics.
Elon doesn't know what the Fed's QE program does or what it means.
Watch investors speak about what they think of the future, and of business, then watch Elon, Zuck etc. speak. There's a marked difference. The investors are economically literate, and usually speak in those terms. Founder don't.
Elon is in 2 business that are fundamentally affected by things like currency, interest rates, consumer credit - Solar City and Tesla. And he never - ever - talks about it.
Most engineers are financially and especially economically illiterate.
But I don't think you actually need to understand econ really well to be a CEO or a good entrepreneur, I just think it's really weird that they don't.
*Georges Lemaitre, and note that he was Catholic, not Evangelical. It's the latter that has a strong cohort of anti-evolution, arguably anti-science-as-a-whole types.
Actually, I was not aware of this, that's really actually quite interesting. Probably the most interesting thing in your dismissal of my flippant use of 2 words :D
People's ideologies and their actions rarely align.
Conservatives talk of 'small government' - and really, truly believe it - but then spend big, especially on defence.
Most bankers would be for 'limited government involvement' but they take bailouts and Fed subsidies.
They are all fairly hypocritical.
Yes, you are right - they are all pragmatically opportunists, trying to build their brands and wealth.
Oh god if that happened... is it possible to die from cringing?
'Buy the way, this is the other part of the deal you just signed!'
I stick my foot in the mouth all the time, but I would never do anything like that.
He's crazy rich, powerful and famous, marrying a young, probably a little naive woman ... the 'roles' seem rather obvious, no reason to demean the poor girl.
I'd say there's probably more diversity working in real estate than most any other large industry. Today you're meeting with some commie union leader, tomorrow a bank prez, next week you're buying off some environmentalist with a donation to their cause. Local political leaders for your plot of dirt could be anything from ultra left to ultra right and you gotta work with them to make your money. Not to mention you're buying and selling to absolutely anyone, money talks. Local urban governments vary from ultra left to moderate and you gotta work with them. The neighbors are all over the political map and if you want them to sign off at the planning commission meeting...
http://www.npr.org/2016/09/29/495955920/donald-trump-plagued...
But by all means, keep trying. Demonstrate exactly how nuanced your view is.
He literally started his career by refusing to rent to black people. Richard Nixon's justice department went after him for it!
I first noticed this with the muddle over who was actually the leader of his campaign team, and then with the Bannon & Priebus setup: giving them equal prominence makes them more subservient to Trump, since if they can't agree they both need to plead their case to Himself.
The myth of the Flat Earth is the modern misconception that the prevailing cosmological view during the Middle Ages saw the Earth as flat, instead of spherical.[1][2] During the early Middle Ages, virtually all scholars maintained the spherical viewpoint first expressed by the Ancient Greeks. By the 14th century, belief in a flat earth among the educated was essentially dead. Flat-Earth models were in fact held at earlier (pre-medieval) times, before the spherical model became commonly accepted in Hellenistic astronomy.[3]
When you can steal market share from existing incumbents, oftentimes with a 10x better product value proposition, then currency, interest rates, and consumer credit are rounding error. They don't matter - you have a potential market that is many times greater than the current size of your company, so you just convince your competitors' customers to switch to you and you get growth even if the economy as a whole is contracting. But on a macro-level, this is zero-sum, because your gain is your competitor's loss. On a macro-level, the only things that lead to everyone's gain are improvements in productivity and better use of unemployed resources.
Now, when it comes to the original thread subject, this is very relevant: it's worrisome that Trump seems to be treating the U.S. economy as a whole the way you would treat a business, and is applying microeconomics tools in a situation subject to macroeconomics. But it's not true that Elon, Zuck, etc. don't understand economics; rather, they understand economics, but the part of it that is relevant to their daily lives is different from the part that pundits and economists care about.
Tesla does not have a product that is fundamentally superior to anything.
Regular car companies releasing amazing electric cars that are now 'long range' and for 1/2 the price.
Tesla's nice display and 'danger modes' are a gimmick.
They are running out of competitive advantage very quickly.
And they are missing production milestones.
He should have made it clear before they were married.
Not brought something so important up a) after the fact and b) during their first dance at the wedding (!!).
Chump move.