>Be in uni
>Discussion about Trump's efficacy as a businessman
>Mention that 4 bankruptcies (over 19 years) spanning 515 business ventures means that he has a 99% success rate
>Not a comprehensive point, I suppose, but the responses were atrocious
>Girl: "We'll be living in a dictatorship in a few weeks"
>Guy: "I'm done with this discussion"
Is it typically frowned upon to look at Trump as a businessman when it comes to national economics?
no, those people were just mongoloid retards
>trying to argue with liberals
We have moved far beyond that point now. There's nothing that can be done to save them. Even if you win an argument they will simply retreat to their safe spaces to top up their spoon-fed anti-Trump talking points.
Just get your degree, and remember their faces for the day of the rope.
they only want to talk about Trump if it means slandering him, anything that reflects on him positively conflicts with their world view so they aren't willing to consider it
>using success rate as per venture and not value of the captial
>not filing for bankruptcy means the business was successful
I hope you aren't an econs major
I would love to have this discussion.
No, I'm not an econ major. Can you elaborate?
>drumpf is a bad businessman
is a shitty meme but it doesn't mean he'll be good at running the country.
His past can't be really taken into account because he's not a career politician.
Forget them user get back into the comfort that is (here)
That's a completely defensible position. The point of this thread is that the only responses I got were absolute dismissal.
What matters is the amount of money that was made, not bankruptcies.
A good business can make a shitload of money in the first 3 years and then go bankrupt.
A bad business can last decades while not making any or little money.
People are usually retarded when discussing politics.
Emotions>Facts
>No, I'm not an econ major. Can you elaborate?
I think the idea is that even a bankruptcy does not mean that a business failed. Bankruptcy, though terrible sounding does have its place in business. It is similar to calling GM a failure because they were in bankruptcy. They did fail, but they are not a failure.
they will bitch at anything regarding Trump. doesn't matter if it's fact
>implying economy in company is the same as econony in a nation
Afterwards, I comprehensively looked at that 92 page PDF form Trump did about the Trump Organization and found all the ventures and their approx. value. It was astounding how much money the org is worth comprised of LLCs and corporations. You could count on your hands how many ventures he wasn't in complete control of (1% vs 99% ownership).
People cite forbes and say that he's ONLY worth 3.5 billion. That empire is fucking massive and he fucking owns it.
>People cite forbes and say that he's ONLY worth 3.5 billion.
The fact that he has a lot of ventures doesn't necessarely mean he's richer than 3.5B. You don't know the assets vs liabilities of those firms, you don't know if he has any personal debts, etc, etc.
He's not saying how much he's worth publicly so no one knows.
What I meant is that the qualifier only does not do justice to the scale of money that they're talking about. 3.5 billion dollars is a lot of money.
You can't beat a liberal in an argument, ever. They're too heavily indoctrinated. By their parents, by their school (from Kindergarten through University), by media, by television, by movies, by art, it's all designed to enforce liberal ideologies. You can't make them doubt something they believe to be a certainty.
Hmm sound familiar
>Girl: "We'll be living in a dictatorship in a few weeks"
sure thing, girlie
It's easy to start a business on paper especially when you're a corporation with a lawyer/accounting division. Starting hundreds, thousands of them does not make you a good businessman.
A businessman's success is measured by his rate of return. This is how much he made, compounded per annum, from his initial sum. For example if used 10,000 to start a business and this became 11,000 next year, my rate of return is 10%. If I kept this up for another year it becomes 12,100.
There's another factor called benchmarking if you want to factor in how well the economy is doing. In better times businesses do better and have a higher rate of return. Obviously this does not mean the businessman is more skilled. So they compare it with something, usually GDP or a major stock index like the Dow Jones.
Trump's rate of return is about one or two percentage points above or below the Dow Jones, depending on which year you start counting. The Dow Jones has averaged 10% compounded, 13% if dividends were reinvested over the past 50 years. For comparison Buffett has averaged 20% and Icahn has averaged 25%.
These guys Are retarded. A bankruptcy usually means your initial investment suffers a huge loss, if not complete loss. Even with miraculous earnings of 33% of investment for three years, your return is 0% at the end. They'll tell you some shit like chapter 11s aren't bankruptcies. This is bullshit. How the debtors decide between chapter 11 (restructuring) and chapter 7 (liquidation) is which they can get more money out of. In this case Trump Taj Mahal was just a unfinished casino. If liquidated, they'd demolish the buildings and get a piece of land in a desolate city. They decided to restructure, ie Trump gives them more of his stake in the business and they postpone interest payments. They suffered huge losses of course.
Trump is really a one-of-a-kind businessman. he doesn't always get it right in business because he tries so many things he is not familiar with, which most entrepreneurs are far too afraid to do (they stick within their own bubbles). He is of a dying breed of jack of all trades entrepreneurs. It's very analogous to mom and pop stores being pushed out by big box retailer corporations with hyper-specialization. The end of an era.
Are you joking mate
Trump deals almost exclusively in high end real estate, mostly casinos and resorts
His other ventures like steaks and water were a negligible part of his portfolio
They wouldn't listen to us and called us evil racist nazis just because we didn't want to flood all white countries with """refugees""". We would gladly debate them if they would have a debate, but they don't, so instead it's best just to make fun of their stupidity while feeling no concern for their policies.
Pay attention to context.