Can you argue that people like Donald Trump supporters have helped shaped the successful?
I've heard many arguments that the American capitalist system works or that the successful are successful mainly because these rednecks have supported policies that benefit the rich and/or helped to build a infrastructure (or the nation) that supports it. Thoughts?
You're hanging out with too many college professors if you believe all of that.
Reeks of Platonic bias, seeing the world as a simplified system that adheres to some mythical immortal conceptual form. Where's the nuance? If you meet a Buddha on the road like this sort of proposition, surely you must kill him?
An old man once said that being smart is making the right decisions at the right time, most of the time. Capitalism is the same way.
There is no perfect system, never has been, never will be.
Trump is wildly successful and a demi-god because of his flawless comb-over
Quite frankly, if you buy into the media narrative regarding Trump you're an idiot who doesn't understand the connection between macro-economic cycles and political trends.
Let me put it this way: There's a good reason why multiple separatist votes have/will come out of Europe. There's a good reason why the leading candidates in the US election are an anti-establishment Republican and an anti-establishment Democrat and far right candidates are popular in numerous European nations. There is, again, a reason there have been anti-government riots in multiple Asian nations, and why there's a massive backlash against the open borders movement throughout Europe.
The reason is more or less the same in every instance. Even Dick Fuld has experienced first hand according to his previous posts, and it's the same reason why his firm died while others who should have been the ones to fold were allowed to continue.
Since my previous career and some of my extended family put me in touch with a number of successful blue collar types, I like to think I've got a pulse on what this trend is better than most.
I get the feeling that most "pundits" haven't stepped outside NYC/LA/DC during the last decade. If they had it would be immediately obvious why Trump and Sanders are popular.
Also, needless to say it's got nothing to do with your hypothesis. It DOES have a lot to do with a global trend collequially referred to as "Brazilification".
Trump will never, ever be prez. You have to be center to get there. Donald has pissed off too many to have a realistic chance. It's a media circus right now, sure, but he'll never get to the top.
Reagan set up the game for private enterprise to thrive (aka. the rich that you're referring to), this happened over 30 years ago.
You're referring to "trickle-down economics." Those policies only support a growing income inequality, which in practice hinders GDP growth. The IMF recently came out with a paper addressing the issue, "Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality : A Global Perspective."
Better paper on the topic, published by a former IMF official. "Former" is important because it gives them more power to speak freely:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/05/the-quiet-coup/3073…
Keep in mind that this was written in 2009. It's been remarkably prescient:
Enim quasi voluptatum culpa facilis unde quidem deleniti. Non fuga in eos debitis fuga. Sit praesentium ullam illo ut minus quaerat nihil aut. Asperiores eligendi omnis ut non temporibus omnis vel eaque. Nostrum omnis nobis itaque rerum molestiae tempora.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...