Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Marty McFly

Donald Trump

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

My take: Trump is a pretty good businessman.

If you find him distasteful remember that his public personal and his flashy style are pure marketing. He develops "luxury" properties, and has managed to create a brand in his own name and lifestyle. Somewhat like Hugh Hefner living his own Playboy lifestyle.

Selling luxury is all branding and marketing, and he just happens to be his own brand. Also like Martha Stewart. Their "public face" is actually part of their business model.

Philosophically, he's as a mixed bag as they come from what I've seen of his interviews.

Edited by KendallJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't help but see him more as a Wynard than a Roark -- I don't think Roark would pimp himself and brand everything he touched. Power for the sake of power; money for the sake of money; more for the sake of more, seems to be Trump's philosophy. Trump ultimately made his billions by borrowing and by riding the wave of inflation, and by producing little.

Wynard wasn't completely hopeless and that is how I feel about Trump; I see him promoting his mug in too many movies, but then he will put up a beautiful building, albeit an expensive one that only the rich can afford.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't help but see him more as a Wynard than a Roark -- I don't think Roark would pimp himself and brand everything he touched.

hmmm...

Rearden Steel

Rearden Metal

D'Anconia Copper

Wyatt Oil

What exactly do you mean by the term "pimping oneself". It's obviously a perjorative. I just want to know what you think it means exactly.

Power for the sake of power; money for the sake of money; more for the sake of more, seems to be Trump's philosophy.

Now I'm not a particular fan of Trump, but this is a pretty direct statement. Do you have some evidence of this actually being his philosophy or do you not particularly like him because he's rich and powerful.

Trump ultimately made his billions by borrowing and by riding the wave of inflation, and by producing little.

When one borrow's money, one has to invest in order to make money. The choice of what to invest in IS PRODUCING, if it makes money. If seeing the wave of inflation is so easy why didn't everyone become overnight billionaires? How did Trump do relative to his competitive developers? What his acheivments are is certainly debatable, but to say he has produced nothing, I find to be a bit questionable. The real estate development industry is a big one, which takes skill to be in, but if you can do it, you can make a lot of money in it. This would hardly be "producing little", wouldn't it?

Wynard wasn't completely hopeless and that is how I feel about Trump; I see him promoting his mug in too many movies, but then he will put up a beautiful building, albeit an expensive one that only the rich can afford.

Wait, if he is putting beautiful buildings up, he can't be "producing little" right? Which is it then?

Is there anything wrong with putting up a building that only the rich can afford?

Interestingly, my wife and I were in NYC this weekend, and we walked into Trump Tower just to look around. Beautiful building. Found a small bar tucked in the corner of the lobby, and had a few drinks. The bartender said that the last time Trump was in the bar, someone approached him and tried to give him their business card (a silly, rude move I think). Trump took it, and when the man asked if he could have Trumps', he said, "I don't need a business card. Everyone knows who I am...." Now was that a brazen show of ego, or Trump's way of getting rid of an annoying groupie? You tell me. I think it's a toss up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hmmm...

Rearden Steel

Rearden Metal

D'Anconia Copper

Wyatt Oil

What exactly do you mean by the term "pimping oneself". It's obviously a perjorative. I just want to know what you think it means exactly.

Now I'm not a particular fan of Trump, but this is a pretty direct statement. Do you have some evidence of this actually being his philosophy or do you not particularly like him because he's rich and powerful.

When one borrow's money, one has to invest in order to make money. The choice of what to invest in IS PRODUCING, if it makes money. If seeing the wave of inflation is so easy why didn't everyone become overnight billionaires? How did Trump do relative to his competitive developers? What his acheivments are is certainly debatable, but to say he has produced nothing, I find to be a bit questionable. The real estate development industry is a big one, which takes skill to be in, but if you can do it, you can make a lot of money in it. This would hardly be "producing little", wouldn't it?

Wait, if he is putting beautiful buildings up, he can't be "producing little" right? Which is it then?

Is there anything wrong with putting up a building that only the rich can afford?

Interestingly, my wife and I were in NYC this weekend, and we walked into Trump Tower just to look around. Beautiful building. Found a small bar tucked in the corner of the lobby, and had a few drinks. The bartender said that the last time Trump was in the bar, someone approached him and tried to give him their business card (a silly, rude move I think). Trump took it, and when the man asked if he could have Trumps', he said, "I don't need a business card. Everyone knows who I am...." Now was that a brazen show of ego, or Trump's way of getting rid of an annoying groupie? You tell me. I think it's a toss up.

Pimpling oneself is pretty much self-explanatory and needs to no further comment. Trump is more of a Wynard than a Roark-type. Any Rand felt there was hope for Wynard, and that is how I feel about Trump.

I dislike Trump for his pursuit of wealth and power. Ayn Rand's philosophy is that a man should have just enough to make his life comfortable, and anything more is unnecessary.

Investors take financial risks, but produce nothing; others are toiling over the creation of wealth.

In the '80s, how many baby boomers because rich through inflation? Lots! Only Trump did it on a much grander scale, and yes, many did become billionaires. In the late '80s he produced little and was very close to bankruptcy in 1990.

Trump undoubtedly has a hegemony on real estate, yet I said nothing about it being wrong that only the rich can afford to stay in his properties, though I'm sure the masses would cringe at the thought of exclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ayn Rand's philosophy is that a man should have just enough to make his life comfortable, and anything more is unnecessary.

Provide a citation for this or rescind it with an apology.

To everyone else: I suggest that you not engage this point until it is proven to be part of Ayn Rand's philosophy.

Investors take financial risks, but produce nothing; others are toiling over the creation of wealth.

If you wish to remain here any longer, you should stop spewing labor union bromides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"I don't need a business card. Everyone knows who I am...." Now was that a brazen show of ego, or Trump's way of getting rid of an annoying groupie?

I think it was simply the truth. I could well imagine that he really doesn't have a business card. What for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pimpling oneself is pretty much self-explanatory and needs to no further comment.

Too much work to define your terms?

Trump is more of a Wynard than a Roark-type. Any Rand felt there was hope for Wynard, and that is how I feel about Trump.

I dislike Trump for his pursuit of wealth and power. Ayn Rand's philosophy is that a man should have just enough to make his life comfortable, and anything more is unnecessary.

Watching you try to find a citation for this claim is going to be fun.

Investors take financial risks, but produce nothing; others are toiling over the creation of wealth.

So by this logic, Midas Mulligan was more like Wynand than Roark? I would suggest you check out "Egalitarianism and Inflation" in Philosophy Who Needs It where she discusses how investors earn their money.

By the way, Trump builds things.

In the '80s, how many baby boomers because rich through inflation? Lots!

No one becomes rich "through inflation". Inflation does not increase value, just the number of 0's in the figure.

Trump undoubtedly has a hegemony on real estate, yet I said nothing about it being wrong that only the rich can afford to stay in his properties, though I'm sure the masses would cringe at the thought of exclusion.

"hegemony"? Want to define this one as well? Trump is hardly the only real estate developer in New York, much less the nation.

Edited by KendallJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Too much work to define your terms?

By the way, while I was being a little flip with this comment, it has a real basis.

You use "pimping" as a metaphor, in this case as a pejorative metaphor. Now I have no problem with anyone who wants to use a pejorative in their arguments; however, a pejorative that has no basis in reality goes by another name, a smear.

A metaphor is never "self-explanatory". A metaphor is shorthand for a comparison between one object and another, and usually only a comparison of certain characteristics. Maybe I phrased it incorrectly, but I'm simply asking you to explain the concrete behaviors of Trump that are exacly like a pimp. If you mean by pimping, that he wears a red suede hat with a feather in it, and gets johns for prostitutes, then I would disagree with you. I have a hunch that is not what you meant. I want to get a sense of what you think "pimping" entails.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Trump is just like Wynand. Rich, powerful, and says what he says only because that is what sells. He's a smart businessman who gives into popular liberal media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
alright, then, what DiD Ayn Rand say about Mr. Rockefellar? (who slightly reminds me of Donald Trump)

Before I even take that on, I think you've got to tell me how John D. Rockefeller is in any way like Dondald Trump. I don't buy it for a second.

This is where those who have "bad feelings" about Trump become dangerous. They start drawing comparisons with other industrialists. I'm open to your comparison; I would just like a little more evidence as opposed to "slightly reminds me of"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not going to comment on the oh-so-many aspects of Trump's personality.

I will just say this. He is a great builder. His buildings dot Manhattan, and have made it greater. He built the two tallest residential buildings in Manhattan. He would have built the world's tallest building on Columbus Circle, if the politicians had let him. When he said he would do it, he meant it, and he would have. From my observation, his buildings are built to the highest standards. For example, all of his residential buildings have central air conditioning, which is still installed in a minority of new buildings here. Most new buildings still put in window or wall air conditioners, which are noisy and less efficient.

Donald Trump also knows how to get things done, in a city that famously stifles entrepreneurship. He built the buildings I mention and others, such as Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue, despite being hated by many populist politicians in the city. I can still remember how much he was hated by nearly every politician in the city for re-building the skating rink in Central Park in the 1980s. He got it done in a few months, when the city had been putzing around for 6 years and failed miserably. He had to completely rip out their mess in order to re-build it.

I don't want to defend Trump's other activities or statements, but I will admire him for his buildings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that's what I thought when I first started this thread. I didn't know much about his personality, I only knew that he built most of the city, and that he has a TV show where he fires people. (never watched it) I knew that he was a "mover" as he would be called in AS and was wondering if he would get invited to Galt's gultch.

I don't know much about Rockeffeler either, except that he produced ALOt in his lifetime. I would compare him to Wyatt.

same as I think Washington Robeling remends me of Rearden or Roark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In defence of material excess.

I remember the joy of the first time I'be been to New York. I love skycrapers. I loved the "minimalistic" beauty of the Twin Towers, I still hold the pictures I've taken from the WTC plaza as some of the best I've ever taken (I should post them!). My favorite spot in the city was the central atrium at Citicorp Center, but I still remember the Trump Tower as something quiet special. At the time I did not like the gold and pink of its atrium, nor all of its bizantine over-ornamentation, but the fact that this was a -residential- tower named after a single individual who made it possible, made it feel like the materialization of freedom. I was 13 at the time and wanted to be an architect, and I felt a little frustrated by the fact that it is hard to keep a creation an individual product of my mind when the client that would make it possible has to be a group. Trump Tower, and I guess Donald Trump himself, was for me a symbol that individual freedom can trascend scale (and I think this is central to egoism and capitalism).

I hate staining a nice memory with this but, chicoflaco, what the hell!

I quote from Capitalism TUI p.33:

Britannica article, AR's caption: "...much private expenditure goes for wants that are not very urgent in any fundamental sense. (Urgent - to whom? Which wants are "fundamental" beyond a cave, a bearskin, and a chunk of raw meat?)..."

The point is self evident: there is no need, and no right, for a roof to top personal ambition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Donald Trump was just on CNBC saying how banks are not lending to commercial real-estate even on what he considers to be very sound deals. When told that the government has been asking banks to lend more, his response was that this was not enough, banks should be forced (his word) to lend more.

Scratch the posturing capitalist and find a national socialist sympathizer!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interestingly, my wife and I were in NYC this weekend, and we walked into Trump Tower just to look around. Beautiful building. Found a small bar tucked in the corner of the lobby, and had a few drinks. The bartender said that the last time Trump was in the bar, someone approached him and tried to give him their business card (a silly, rude move I think). Trump took it, and when the man asked if he could have Trumps', he said, "I don't need a business card. Everyone knows who I am...." Now was that a brazen show of ego, or Trump's way of getting rid of an annoying groupie? You tell me. I think it's a toss up.

Ego. Beautiful, shimmering ego.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Donald Trump was just on CNBC saying how banks are not lending to commercial real-estate even on what he considers to be very sound deals. When told that the government has been asking banks to lend more, his response was that this was not enough, banks should be forced (his word) to lend more.

Scratch the posturing capitalist and find a national socialist sympathizer!

And, here's why Capitalism is so misunderstood: the notion that it involves using the government's coercive power to accomplish goals. Meanwhile, I am training to be a developer and, later, an architect with Fountainhead as my greatest inspiration.

Wish me luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Donald Trump was just on CNBC saying how banks are not lending to commercial real-estate even on what he considers to be very sound deals. When told that the government has been asking banks to lend more, his response was that this was not enough, banks should be forced (his word) to lend more.

Scratch the posturing capitalist and find a national socialist sympathizer!

He is all over the map in general, but that statement about force seems odd even for The Donald. The whole thing is a mess that is exponentially worse due to the TARP bail out. So, not to defend him, but if he was speaking in the context that these banks were ostensibly given money to loan and they're not...

...ugh, never mind, there's no way to make sense of it. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What do you think Rands charachters, especially Galt would say about a man like Donald Trump? (We all know what Cherril Taggart would say)

I admire Mr. Trump for the positive reasons stated here. However, I do not believe he is a man of character like Wyatt from Shrugged.

I heard him speak at a motivational seminar once. He told the story of how he lost his first fortune, blaming most of that on a certain other businessman, and that he used the negative energy of wanting to destroy that other person to make his comeback. He planned and schemed for years to become involved in another business deal with that man just so he could "screw" him over. Even the seminar host was embarrassed by the story and suggested that maybe we shouldn't try to emulate THAT part of his talk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My impression of D.T. leans toward the 'mixed premises' column, as one cannot dispute that he is a successful initiator ( I just can't view him as a creator ), and as far as the mixed economy of the U.S. allows/ aids /constrains him, a Capitalist.

That I could never consider him an O'ist hero, is more to do with his posturing egotism - he behaves and speaks like a man who believes his own Press, or a B-grade actor playing a business tycoon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I admire Mr. Trump for the positive reasons stated here. However, I do not believe he is a man of character like Wyatt from Shrugged.

I heard him speak at a motivational seminar once. He told the story of how he lost his first fortune, blaming most of that on a certain other businessman, and that he used the negative energy of wanting to destroy that other person to make his comeback. He planned and schemed for years to become involved in another business deal with that man just so he could "screw" him over. Even the seminar host was embarrassed by the story and suggested that maybe we shouldn't try to emulate THAT part of his talk.

Can't say I blame the man though. But that sounds Wyatt-like in a way. Trump is definitely tapping Wyatt's essence sometimes, that's for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×