Trump says he has his pick of the top ten people in any discipline

[Harpy Eagle]

I wish Trump's picks were as good as Trump's mouth. I voted for orange man (was there really any choice? LOL) and I'm disappointed in all of the turnover in his administration, although I'd be delighted to see Jeff Sessions out of office.

it's been a turnstyle hasn't it?

some are likely due to him.
some are likely due to just not wanting all the headaches and hate that comes with him
some likely just moved on as normal

but he's going through them like he's still on tv and that makes it difficult to bring in good people if they think they could be "next". YUGE disappointment in his turnover ratio for sure.

Just imagine how much worse it would be if Hillary had won. It's chilling to imagine.

I am not sure what would have been worse had she won. The biggest difference would be who the SCOTUS justice was. Spending would still be going up like it is under Trump, the debt would still be getting bigger like it is under Trump. I am not sure she would have started a trade war with Canada.

but then we get back to the mindset of if you like NAFTA or not. if not, you'd hate hillary for continuing what they feel is a stupid policy. if you do, then you love what trump is doing cause it never should have been done.

either way it's not a moment of pride for our country, these times.

NAFTA, like everything in life has some good and some bad. I currently work in the Ag industry and let me tell you, NAFTA is hugely popular among those growing beans and corn and wheat and a few other things.

 

[Faun]

it's been a turnstyle hasn't it?

some are likely due to him.
some are likely due to just not wanting all the headaches and hate that comes with him
some likely just moved on as normal

but he's going through them like he's still on tv and that makes it difficult to bring in good people if they think they could be "next". YUGE disappointment in his turnover ratio for sure.

Just imagine how much worse it would be if Hillary had won. It's chilling to imagine.

I am not sure what would have been worse had she won. The biggest difference would be who the SCOTUS justice was. Spending would still be going up like it is under Trump, the debt would still be getting bigger like it is under Trump. I am not sure she would have started a trade war with Canada.

I'm sure Hillary appreciates your continued support. If only she had had a few more like you in the swing states.

where did he say he supported her?

I don't know. Where?

Liar, time to ignore yourself.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I am not sure what would have been worse had she won. The biggest difference would be who the SCOTUS justice was. Spending would still be going up like it is under Trump, the debt would still be getting bigger like it is under Trump. I am not sure she would have started a trade war with Canada.

I'm sure Hillary appreciates your continued support. If only she had had a few more like you in the swing states.

where did he say he supported her?

I don't know. Where?

trick question. he didn't.

He didn't have to.

You just like to make shit up about people and then whine when people lie...I wonder if you can see the irony there.

 

[iceberg]

I wish Trump's picks were as good as Trump's mouth. I voted for orange man (was there really any choice? LOL) and I'm disappointed in all of the turnover in his administration, although I'd be delighted to see Jeff Sessions out of office.

it's been a turnstyle hasn't it?

some are likely due to him.
some are likely due to just not wanting all the headaches and hate that comes with him
some likely just moved on as normal

but he's going through them like he's still on tv and that makes it difficult to bring in good people if they think they could be "next". YUGE disappointment in his turnover ratio for sure.

Just imagine how much worse it would be if Hillary had won. It's chilling to imagine.

I am not sure what would have been worse had she won. The biggest difference would be who the SCOTUS justice was. Spending would still be going up like it is under Trump, the debt would still be getting bigger like it is under Trump. I am not sure she would have started a trade war with Canada.

but then we get back to the mindset of if you like NAFTA or not. if not, you'd hate hillary for continuing what they feel is a stupid policy. if you do, then you love what trump is doing cause it never should have been done.

either way it's not a moment of pride for our country, these times.

NAFTA, like everything in life has some good and some bad. I currently work in the Ag industry and let me tell you, NAFTA is hugely popular among those growing beans and corn and wheat and a few other things.

well i don't know intimate details, just one side says yes, the other, no. but my general feel is we gave up a lot to get that in other areas that in the long run hurt us. i *do* think it needs to be more balanced but there is a need for trade agreements. i just think we can do better. outside that i'd have to do a LOT of reading and research. and almost out of time as people are showing up for work now.

 

[iceberg]

Just imagine how much worse it would be if Hillary had won. It's chilling to imagine.

I am not sure what would have been worse had she won. The biggest difference would be who the SCOTUS justice was. Spending would still be going up like it is under Trump, the debt would still be getting bigger like it is under Trump. I am not sure she would have started a trade war with Canada.

I'm sure Hillary appreciates your continued support. If only she had had a few more like you in the swing states.

where did he say he supported her?

I don't know. Where?

Liar, time to ignore yourself.

i tried to ignore me once. i said "ice, you couldn't ignore me if you tried" and then we went and watched breakfast club.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I am not sure what would have been worse had she won. The biggest difference would be who the SCOTUS justice was. Spending would still be going up like it is under Trump, the debt would still be getting bigger like it is under Trump. I am not sure she would have started a trade war with Canada.

I'm sure Hillary appreciates your continued support. If only she had had a few more like you in the swing states.

where did he say he supported her?

I don't know. Where?

Liar, time to ignore yourself.

i tried to ignore me once. i said "ice, you couldn't ignore me if you tried" and then we went and watched breakfast club.

Great movie!

 

[iceberg]

I'm sure Hillary appreciates your continued support. If only she had had a few more like you in the swing states.

where did he say he supported her?

I don't know. Where?

Liar, time to ignore yourself.

i tried to ignore me once. i said "ice, you couldn't ignore me if you tried" and then we went and watched breakfast club.

Great movie!

defined a generation so well. amazing times to grow up in. so much better than kids are getting today. but at least they get it a lot faster and in a lot more places.

 

[Mac1958]

For the most part, economists aren't ideologues. They perform research and publish their findings. Those findings happen to support the predefined ideology of one or another political persuasion, and the economist who published his/her findings gets tagged by ideologues as being in this or that ideological camp. Given their druthers, economists would discard normative economic notions and stick to and implement policy based almost purely on the findings of positive economics.

Like anyone else, economists are prone to becoming infected with a political ideology. Once that happens, objectivity, curiosity and rationality go out the window, as with any other ideologue. And the higher that economist is on the food chain, the more damage that affliction can cause. And I refer to the examples I listed above.

Indeed, most economists are able to avoid this affliction. Maybe it's the teevee camera that exacerbates the infection.
.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

The Internet gives a resounding ‘nope’ to Trump’s claim that ‘everybody wants to work in the White House’
During a joint press conference with Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven, President Donald Trump claimed that “everybody wants to work in the White House” — and Twitter didn’t attempt to stifle their guffaws.

 

[Indeependent]

I wonder whether Cohn will be replaced by any of the individuals who are widely (among folks who are plugged into economics) acknowledged as being among the top economists alive today.

• Economist Rankings | IDEAS/RePEc
  
• That ranking
  
• 20 Most Influential Living Economists
  
• Top 100 Most Influential Economists 2017

I'm not holding my breath that any of them becomes his national economic advisor.

How about someone who believes in Comparative Advantage?

 

[Papageorgio]

I wish Trump's picks were as good as Trump's mouth. I voted for orange man (was there really any choice? LOL) and I'm disappointed in all of the turnover in his administration, although I'd be delighted to see Jeff Sessions out of office.

it's been a turnstyle hasn't it?

some are likely due to him.
some are likely due to just not wanting all the headaches and hate that comes with him
some likely just moved on as normal

but he's going through them like he's still on tv and that makes it difficult to bring in good people if they think they could be "next". YUGE disappointment in his turnover ratio for sure.

Just imagine how much worse it would be if Hillary had won. It's chilling to imagine.

I am not sure what would have been worse had she won. The biggest difference would be who the SCOTUS justice was. Spending would still be going up like it is under Trump, the debt would still be getting bigger like it is under Trump. I am not sure she would have started a trade war with Canada.

I'm sure Hillary appreciates your continued support. If only she had had a few more like you in the swing states.

I wish Trump's picks were as good as Trump's mouth. I voted for orange man (was there really any choice? LOL) and I'm disappointed in all of the turnover in his administration, although I'd be delighted to see Jeff Sessions out of office.

it's been a turnstyle hasn't it?

some are likely due to him.
some are likely due to just not wanting all the headaches and hate that comes with him
some likely just moved on as normal

but he's going through them like he's still on tv and that makes it difficult to bring in good people if they think they could be "next". YUGE disappointment in his turnover ratio for sure.

Just imagine how much worse it would be if Hillary had won. It's chilling to imagine.

I am not sure what would have been worse had she won. The biggest difference would be who the SCOTUS justice was. Spending would still be going up like it is under Trump, the debt would still be getting bigger like it is under Trump. I am not sure she would have started a trade war with Canada.

I'm sure Hillary appreciates your continued support. If only she had had a few more like you in the swing states.

Oh god no, I did not vote for or support Hillary. Many people looked at the two and choose what they thought was the "lesser of two evils", I looked at them and saw different but equal evils.

So, I voted as I had since 1996, for a third party.

I agree both were disasters and I went third party also.

 

[iceberg]

I wish Trump's picks were as good as Trump's mouth. I voted for orange man (was there really any choice? LOL) and I'm disappointed in all of the turnover in his administration, although I'd be delighted to see Jeff Sessions out of office.

it's been a turnstyle hasn't it?

some are likely due to him.
some are likely due to just not wanting all the headaches and hate that comes with him
some likely just moved on as normal

but he's going through them like he's still on tv and that makes it difficult to bring in good people if they think they could be "next". YUGE disappointment in his turnover ratio for sure.

Just imagine how much worse it would be if Hillary had won. It's chilling to imagine.

I am not sure what would have been worse had she won. The biggest difference would be who the SCOTUS justice was. Spending would still be going up like it is under Trump, the debt would still be getting bigger like it is under Trump. I am not sure she would have started a trade war with Canada.

I'm sure Hillary appreciates your continued support. If only she had had a few more like you in the swing states.

it's been a turnstyle hasn't it?

some are likely due to him.
some are likely due to just not wanting all the headaches and hate that comes with him
some likely just moved on as normal

but he's going through them like he's still on tv and that makes it difficult to bring in good people if they think they could be "next". YUGE disappointment in his turnover ratio for sure.

Just imagine how much worse it would be if Hillary had won. It's chilling to imagine.

I am not sure what would have been worse had she won. The biggest difference would be who the SCOTUS justice was. Spending would still be going up like it is under Trump, the debt would still be getting bigger like it is under Trump. I am not sure she would have started a trade war with Canada.

I'm sure Hillary appreciates your continued support. If only she had had a few more like you in the swing states.

Oh god no, I did not vote for or support Hillary. Many people looked at the two and choose what they thought was the "lesser of two evils", I looked at them and saw different but equal evils.

So, I voted as I had since 1996, for a third party.

I agree both were disasters and I went third party also.

i would have gone 3rd party except the pothead couldn't name 1 single foreign leader when asked.

don't care if he smokes. puff up daddy-o. get your chill on. but if you don't know people you can't work with them and you certainly can't understand why we have the problems we do.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

i would have gone 3rd party except the pothead couldn't name 1 single foreign leader when asked.

don't care if he smokes. puff up daddy-o. get your chill on. but if you don't know people you can't work with them and you certainly can't understand why we have the problems we do.

The problem with this reasoning is that the guy we ended up electing was no better except that he was coached a bit better to know names. There is no indication that Trump understands the "why" of pretty much anything going on in the world.

 

[Papageorgio]

it's been a turnstyle hasn't it?

some are likely due to him.
some are likely due to just not wanting all the headaches and hate that comes with him
some likely just moved on as normal

but he's going through them like he's still on tv and that makes it difficult to bring in good people if they think they could be "next". YUGE disappointment in his turnover ratio for sure.

Just imagine how much worse it would be if Hillary had won. It's chilling to imagine.

I am not sure what would have been worse had she won. The biggest difference would be who the SCOTUS justice was. Spending would still be going up like it is under Trump, the debt would still be getting bigger like it is under Trump. I am not sure she would have started a trade war with Canada.

I'm sure Hillary appreciates your continued support. If only she had had a few more like you in the swing states.

Just imagine how much worse it would be if Hillary had won. It's chilling to imagine.

I am not sure what would have been worse had she won. The biggest difference would be who the SCOTUS justice was. Spending would still be going up like it is under Trump, the debt would still be getting bigger like it is under Trump. I am not sure she would have started a trade war with Canada.

I'm sure Hillary appreciates your continued support. If only she had had a few more like you in the swing states.

Oh god no, I did not vote for or support Hillary. Many people looked at the two and choose what they thought was the "lesser of two evils", I looked at them and saw different but equal evils.

So, I voted as I had since 1996, for a third party.

I agree both were disasters and I went third party also.

i would have gone 3rd party except the pothead couldn't name 1 single foreign leader when asked.

don't care if he smokes. puff up daddy-o. get your chill on. but if you don't know people you can't work with them and you certainly can't understand why we have the problems we do.

I didn’t vote libertarian, I didn’t care for his polices.

 

[iceberg]

i would have gone 3rd party except the pothead couldn't name 1 single foreign leader when asked.

don't care if he smokes. puff up daddy-o. get your chill on. but if you don't know people you can't work with them and you certainly can't understand why we have the problems we do.

The problem with this reasoning is that the guy we ended up electing was no better except that he was coached a bit better to know names. There is no indication that Trump understands the "why" of pretty much anything going on in the world.

but he did know and run with many around the world previously. show me where trump couldn't name a single leader and i'll go "oops" but not knowing full policy is a long way of not even knowing who they are.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

i would have gone 3rd party except the pothead couldn't name 1 single foreign leader when asked.

don't care if he smokes. puff up daddy-o. get your chill on. but if you don't know people you can't work with them and you certainly can't understand why we have the problems we do.

The problem with this reasoning is that the guy we ended up electing was no better except that he was coached a bit better to know names. There is no indication that Trump understands the "why" of pretty much anything going on in the world.

but he did know and run with many around the world previously. show me where trump couldn't name a single leader and i'll go "oops" but not knowing full policy is a long way of not even knowing who they are.

Yes, he knew their names, I will give you that. It is the "why" knowledge you spoke of that that he lacks.

 

[boilermaker55]

Of course he does.

But with him the bar is so low you have to dig it out of the ground.

I wonder whether Cohn will be replaced by any of the individuals who are widely (among folks who are plugged into economics) acknowledged as being among the top economists alive today.

• Economist Rankings | IDEAS/RePEc
  
• That ranking
  
• 20 Most Influential Living Economists
  
• Top 100 Most Influential Economists 2017

I'm not holding my breath that any of them becomes his national economic advisor.

 

[usmbguest5318]

For the most part, economists aren't ideologues. They perform research and publish their findings. Those findings happen to support the predefined ideology of one or another political persuasion, and the economist who published his/her findings gets tagged by ideologues as being in this or that ideological camp. Given their druthers, economists would discard normative economic notions and stick to and implement policy based almost purely on the findings of positive economics.

Like anyone else, economists are prone to becoming infected with a political ideology. Once that happens, objectivity, curiosity and rationality go out the window, as with any other ideologue. And the higher that economist is on the food chain, the more damage that affliction can cause. And I refer to the examples I listed above.

Indeed, most economists are able to avoid this affliction. Maybe it's the teevee camera that exacerbates the infection.
.

Indeed, most economists are able to avoid this affliction. Maybe it's the teevee camera that exacerbates the infection.

I think economists don't suffer from that affliction because they are, for the most part, very self-assured and confident individuals who are well aware of what their accomplishments and failures are, and as a result, don't need the approbation or gratification that comes from being recognized by the general public.

To be perfectly honest, I don't see economists appearing all that much on mass market television programs. On the other hand, I do see them appear as panelists at symposia, as speakers at lectures, participants in seminars, etc. Being invited to do so, however, results from the substantive analytical work they perform and publish. Indeed, I dare say that economists appear on television so infrequently that the average voter/American cannot name any five current U.S.' or global leading economists and identify in broad terms why they are such. (I suspect too that the average voter can't name ten of history's most relevant economists and why they are/were such.)

Make no mistake, there is disagreement among economists about the esoterica of the discipline and about the efficacy of certain means (policy) that may be implemented to achieve "this or that" end. The reason they disagree about that is there isn't resounding consensus about the elements various researchers/analysts include or disinclude in their econometric modeling. For example, as goes trade policy, what factors are or are not righly included in the gravity model used to assess the impact of any given policy approach or topical area of consideration. [1] Most of the key factors are agreed upon; however, there are a few that are not, and among those few, for better or worse, are some that can, if included/excluded, result in the model miltating for or against a given policy approach.

That said, there is not disagreement among economists about the basics of the discipline. [2] That is why there is resounding disapproval among economists for Trump's trade policies, and his recently announced tariffs. His tariffs fly in the face of over a century's worth of very sound and well established empirical and theoretical research and findings therefrom. Put another way, it doesn't mater what key factors one may include or omit from one's gravity modeling, putting in a tariff of the nature Trump's announced produces deleterious outcomes. It is for that reason that there resounding agreement about the absurdity and ill advised nature of Trump's tariff.

Of course, there is a huge reason why economists generally eschew mass market television news:

• Economists know that economics, like all sciences, isn't nearly as simplistic as most people would like to believe, yet despite what economists share, the public, knowing nothing (or next to nothing) about the subject matter, will nonetheless pontifically refute the legitimacy of what they just heard an actual economist identify or describe. Serious people who bother to discuss serious matters simply aren't keen to having to defend their strongly substantiated distillations of facts and findings to folks like that.
  
  Aside:
  BTW, you might wonder how one can know roughly the extent to which general public understands economics.
  
  An anecdotal way to know is to have an econ degree and thus know quite well what formal training is needed to understand economics and be roughly aware of how few folks graduated with one when they earned one's own econ degree(s). More broadly and reliably, however, one need only look at econ degree conferral metrics and relationship between demand for economists and the supply of them. For instance, in 2015, ~43.6K undergraduate economics degrees were awarded. (I don't know what are the metrics on the number of people who, in the U.S., minor in or obtain associate degrees in economics. I do know that some quantity in excess of a million people annually earn baccalaureate degrees.) Approximately 1000 individuals per year complete an economics PhD, which, as a practical matter, is the degree one must have to work explicitly as a practicing economist, as opposed to working as an applied economics professional in a corporate or governmental capacity.
  
  At the relatively basic level of most public policy discourse, a BS in Economics (or BA in economics if one went to Wharton or another school that labels any degree in business as an economics degree) is sufficient for reviewing the merits of the proposals politicians express. On the other hand, having a master's degree in economics is enough to know immediately the nature and extent to which politicians bastardize the sound economic advice they receive.
• While economists aren't necessarily misanthropic, neither are they in general seekers of the sort celebrity that comes from appearing on mass market television shows. Think about it. The presidents of any of the Federal Reserve banks could, if they wanted to be, be nightly on the news offering whatever commentary they want to. When was the last time you saw any of them on the news and how often does that happen?

Note:

1. One can observe firsthand one element of debate among economists by reading the follow papers:
   • The Gravity Model in International Trade (Salvatici)
     
   • The gravity model in international trade (De Benedictis and Taglioni)
     
   • Trade Blocks and the Gravity Model: A Study of Economic Integration among Asian Developing Countries
     
   • Gravity Model by Panel Data Approach An Empirical Application with Implications for South Asian Countries
     
   • Trade Flows and Spatial Effects: The Gravity Model Revisited
2. What are some of the basics upon which economists overwhelmingly agree?
   • The Secret Consensus Among Economists
     
   • 4 Politically Controversial Issues Where All Economists Agree
     
   • 6 Issues Democrat And Republican Economists Agree On
     
   • Do Economists Agree on Anything? Yes!

 

[usmbguest5318]

I wish Trump's picks were as good as Trump's mouth. I voted for orange man (was there really any choice? LOL) and I'm disappointed in all of the turnover in his administration, although I'd be delighted to see Jeff Sessions out of office.

I think the turnover is a welcome change, it ensures that people don't get too comfy unless they are really committed to America. Also Trump doesn't get too reliant on advisers.

That is one of the most amazing spin jobs I have seen in a while on here.

Think you could find one company that would agree with your view on turnover?

"Ain't nobody who matters in no organization" gonna think be a good thing turnover of the nature and extent we've witnessed in the Trump WH.

• An Assessment of the Impact of Employee Turnover on Organization Performance (1)
  
• Employee Turnover Impact in Organizational Knowledge Management
  
• An Assessment of the Impact of Employee Turnover on Organization Performance (2)
  
• Employee Turnover and Organizational Performance in U.S. Federal Agencies
  
• The Negative Effect and Consequences of Employee Turnover and Retention on the Organization and Its Staff
  
• Meta-Analytic Review of Employee Turnover as a Predictor of Firm Performance
  
• Understanding how dissatisfaction drives employee turnover