This is a false dichotomy.
How does one "build things" without deploying the charisma necessary to change processes and people?
How does one "build things" without schmoozing nay-sayers into agreement and finding acceptable modifications to the original plan.
Charisma / Power
11–20 of 28 posts
Re: Charisma / Power
#12So true. President Drumpf is this tragedy come to life.
Re: Charisma / Power
#13Donald Trump is both a powerful builder and very charismatic. He builds buildings and has loads of charisma.
The dichotomy between Trump and Hillary is false in this case on dimensions other than simply having charisma.
Trump had more charisma than Hillary as well as the 16 or whatever ridiculous number of GOP candidates there were at one point.
Bernie Sanders was the only candidate in this cycle with a similar level of charisma and Democrats did the thing that the GOP did the previous 2 elections - and it cost them.
Re: Charisma / Power
#14Donald Trump is both a powerful builder and very charismatic. He builds buildings and has loads of charisma. The dichotomy between Trump and Hillary is false in this case on dimensions other than simply having charisma. Trump had more charisma than Hillary as well as the 16 or whatever ridiculous number of GOP candidates there were at one point. Bernie Sanders was the only candidate in this cycle with a similar level…
Trump is many things, and charismatic may be one of them, although personally I don't see it, but "a powerful builder" is not one of them.
Trump doesn't build buildings - he licenses his name to buildings other people build. He doesn't even own most of the properties that bear his name. The only thing he can feasibly claim to have built is his own celebrity, and prior to his recent status, his celebrity might generously be described as b-list - he was a reality show star who was once a professional wrestling celebrity heel and sometimes guest starred as himself on various tv shows.
The distinction is important, I believe, because to me, "builder" implies someone with a passion and a deep understanding of the art of whatever they make their living at. I don't see a passion about architecture or design from Trump, nor do I get a sense that he understands how they work, or that he cares.
Re: Charisma / Power
#15Who embodies both(builder + schmoozer)? Surely they exist right?
Donald Trump. He is literally off the charts both. He builds very large, impressive buildings for a living. He is enough of a charismatic individual that through force of personality won the presidency.
My understanding is that he's generated less returns off his inheritance than he would have done by investing in index funds. If true, isn't he just a rich kid spending his inheritance?
Re: Charisma / Power
#16Who embodies both(builder + schmoozer)? Surely they exist right?
Warren Buffett is both. He's a very capable schmoozer now after decades of practice (he wasn't when he was very young). His style of schmoozing, the disarming folksy charm etc., is a huge part of what enabled him to buy the companies he did, luring in very talented owner/operators. And he's an empire builder of the scale few in world history have ever managed in financial terms. To manage to put something like Berkshire together and not have it collapse under its own weight after 50+ years (due to mismanagement or any number of dozens of common reasons), is an extraordinary accomplishment of building.
Re: Charisma / Power
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
Donald Trump. He is literally off the charts both. He builds very large, impressive buildings for a living. He is enough of a charismatic individual that through force of personality won the presidency.
My understanding is that he's generated less returns off his inheritance than he would have done by investing in index funds. If true, isn't he just a rich kid spending his inheritance?
He didn't inherit any large sum, that was a fraudulent story pushed by the left to attack Trump. It's not an exaggeration to say that there was zero evidence presented to support that claim.
Trump has said he received a million dollar loan to get started (circa early 1970s?). The return he generated, to say the least, was extraordinary.
Further, even going by that bogus story, not all sectors of the economy generate the same returns. A person is not to be shamed for making less money in retail or dog food than in tech or oil. One has to consider the results they generated in the field they chose to focus in. It's disingenuous, and then some, to hold all business people up to the standard of: well if you had just put all your money, at some arbitrary high point, into an index fund for N years, you'd be richer - that would discredit nearly all successful business people.
Hey Sam Walton, if you had just liquidated all of your Walmart shares in 1992 before you died and put the wealth into an index fund, your family would be richer. That's mathematically correct and ridiculous. Off the top of my head I can list dozens of examples like this among the Forbes 400 past or present.
Re: Charisma / Power
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
My understanding is that he's generated less returns off his inheritance than he would have done by investing in index funds. If true, isn't he just a rich kid spending his inheritance?
He didn't inherit any large sum, that was a fraudulent story pushed by the left to attack Trump. It's not an exaggeration to say that there was zero evidence presented to support that claim. Trump has said he received a million dollar loan to get started (circa early 1970s?). The return he generated, to say the least, was extraordinary. Further, even going by that bogus story, not all sectors of the economy generate…
I was reasonably sure there were well cited stories in the NYT showing his effective inheritance was huge, and that he'd massively underperformed compared to other NY property developers. Are those fake news because they're from NYT?
edit: also I'm not entirely sure Marco Rubio counts as "liberal media", but I'm not up to date with the latest lingo. Politifact seems to think $1m is fairly unlikely though: http://www.politifact.com/florida/article/2016/mar/07/did-do...
Re: Charisma / Power
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
He didn't inherit any large sum, that was a fraudulent story pushed by the left to attack Trump. It's not an exaggeration to say that there was zero evidence presented to support that claim. Trump has said he received a million dollar loan to get started (circa early 1970s?). The return he generated, to say the least, was extraordinary. Further, even going by that bogus story, not all sectors of the economy generate…
I was reasonably sure there were well cited stories in the NYT showing his effective inheritance was huge, and that he'd massively underperformed compared to other NY property developers. Are those fake news because they're from NYT? edit: also I'm not entirely sure Marco Rubio counts as "liberal media", but I'm not up to date with the latest lingo. Politifact seems to think $1m is fairly unlikely though: http://www.…
No, there was never any evidence provided to support the claim. Trump publicly stated over, and over, and over again that it wasn't correct. The liberal media never gave evidence post any of those statements by Trump about the million dollar loan, to refute him. Then they entirely dropped the attack as a vector, obviously because they couldn't support it.
edit: I never said Marco Rubio was part of the liberal media. You're inventing that false setup. I said the liberal media, that doesn't mean Marco Rubio must belong to the liberal media if he also said x y z about Trump. Given how very heated the race was, why would it be surprising for any of the Republican competitors to latch on to the same attacks?
So in other words, there's zero evidence to support Trump inheriting a vast fortune, exactly as I said.
Re: Charisma / Power
#20So lets analyze this for a moment. We have defined a "Builder Type" CEO who is not charismatic yet is defined by being able to build and ship things. Like Mark Zuckerberg minus his team of PR people. Then we have a "Charismatic Type" CEO who people like but who can't get anything done. By this definition, Obama would be the useless yet charismatic CEO. Hillary, who has never built anything (that I can identify), woul…
>Hillary, who has never built anything (that I can identify), would be a "Builder" type (apparently?).
Well what do you define as building? She was a successful legislator and built up a charity and public speaking business for herself out of almost nothing.