-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
Culture fails.
- Thread starter notimp
- Start date
- Views 5,798
- Replies 56
- Likes 2
Voting in a man to be president of the United States of America, because of his 'business acumen'. ("You're fired!")
Then glancing over, that what is public information in regards to their tax filings shows - that between 1985 and 1994 they lost more money, than any other human being in the US - resulting in 2 cents out of every dollar lost by all businesses during every one of those years - and an accumulated total of 1.17 billion USD lost. And doing so in hotels and casinos - two businesses with the tendency to hardly ever fail, because the risks are kind of stacked in your favor.
src: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/tax-expe...ounted-2-cents-out-every-dollar-business-loss
Then explaining that away with the following statement:
Which kind of amounts to "dont worry, its not his fault - its just that he alway found dummies who trusted him with valuables. Like money. Or a country..."
Which kind of underlines the point.
- of: America, a country where you can be born rich, then loose all/much of your money (see Born Rich (2003) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0342143/ ), then still graft your way to the presidency, by selling to people that you are a great business man. The greatest, in fact. Because culture fails.
- a.k.a. the most actively buildingest man in history.
(Now what Trump actually did is to buy up failing businesses, and then trying to scalp them of remaining value, before writing them off. The thing is, he even failed at that, because he always ended up in lenders debt, for which he was personally responsible. So in his later years, Banks - would keep him around for his "brand value" only, which they sold to other business men around the worlds (who were opening up "Trump resorts"), leaving the man only with a small part of the royalties, keeping the rest as compensation for his previous losses. Renting him out to make TV Shows and stuff. Because, that man - could sh*t talk. see: f.e.: https://www.inc.com/erik-sherman/trump-organization-value-plummets-by-90-dangers-of-branding.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/27/us/politics/donald-trump-wealth.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_of_Donald_Trump )
edit: I'm diving into this one a little more (personal net worth vs. business ventures that went bust). Reading The Economist articles from 2016.
I'll report back.
The Economist 20-26 February 2016 excerpts:
From the Tower to the White House - Analysing Trump Inc.
So take the contested part of personal brand inflation out of it, and he is still 'worth' 3.4 billion in mostly real estate assets as of 2016. (If all debts are accounted for, so to the best of The Economits estimations.)
The key part to put that into context is that his fathers stated net worth of 100 million USD in 1978, would have reached 6 billion USD in 2016 with an annual appreciation rate of 10.5% which is how US pension funds usually performed according to the Wiki entry. To end up at 3 billion, annual effective interest would have had to be around 9%.
In 1976 Trump boasted to a NYT reporter, that he already was worth 200 million. Which he wasnt, because at this time, it still was his fathers fortune. But lets say - that for once, he spoke the truth about the amount in that one instance - then the annual rate of return to end up at 3 billion in 2016 would have had to be 7%.
edit: The economist has a neat graph.
This is the "brand value is contested" part:
2004 was when his brand was at high fame, during "The Apprentice".
Then glancing over, that what is public information in regards to their tax filings shows - that between 1985 and 1994 they lost more money, than any other human being in the US - resulting in 2 cents out of every dollar lost by all businesses during every one of those years - and an accumulated total of 1.17 billion USD lost. And doing so in hotels and casinos - two businesses with the tendency to hardly ever fail, because the risks are kind of stacked in your favor.
src: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/tax-expe...ounted-2-cents-out-every-dollar-business-loss
Then explaining that away with the following statement:
src: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019...nald-trump-actually-lost-usd1-17-billion.html
Which kind of amounts to "dont worry, its not his fault - its just that he alway found dummies who trusted him with valuables. Like money. Or a country..."
Which kind of underlines the point.
- of: America, a country where you can be born rich, then loose all/much of your money (see Born Rich (2003) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0342143/ ), then still graft your way to the presidency, by selling to people that you are a great business man. The greatest, in fact. Because culture fails.
Real estate developers in the 1980’s & 1990’s, more than 30 years ago, were entitled to massive write offs and depreciation which would, if one was actively building, show losses and tax losses in almost all cases. Much was non monetary. Sometimes considered “tax shelter,” ......
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 8, 2019
- a.k.a. the most actively buildingest man in history.
(Now what Trump actually did is to buy up failing businesses, and then trying to scalp them of remaining value, before writing them off. The thing is, he even failed at that, because he always ended up in lenders debt, for which he was personally responsible. So in his later years, Banks - would keep him around for his "brand value" only, which they sold to other business men around the worlds (who were opening up "Trump resorts"), leaving the man only with a small part of the royalties, keeping the rest as compensation for his previous losses. Renting him out to make TV Shows and stuff. Because, that man - could sh*t talk. see: f.e.: https://www.inc.com/erik-sherman/trump-organization-value-plummets-by-90-dangers-of-branding.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/27/us/politics/donald-trump-wealth.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_of_Donald_Trump )
edit: I'm diving into this one a little more (personal net worth vs. business ventures that went bust). Reading The Economist articles from 2016.
I'll report back. The Economist 20-26 February 2016 excerpts:
From the Tower to the White House - Analysing Trump Inc.
Code:
Which version is right? A review of Mr Trump’s career, his filings with
regulators and third-party estimates of his wealth, suggests four
conclusions. First, his fortune is in the billions of dollars. Second,
his attempt to shift away from debt-heavy property and to create a
global brand has been a limited success. About 93% of his wealth sits in
America and 80% is in real estate (including golf courses). Third, Mr
Trump’s performance has been mediocre compared with the stockmarket and
property in New York. Lastly, his clannish management style suggests he
might be out of his depth if he ran a larger organisation. “I’ve been
through cycles, I’ve been through a lot,” admits Mr Trump. His career
can be split into three stages. The era of debt-fuelled expansion was in
1975-90. Mr Trump’s big break was the renovation of a site at Grand
Central Station, which is now occupied by the Hyatt Hotel. He raised
cash, found a tenant, secured permits and completed a complex building
job, according to his biographer, Michael D’Antonio. Buoyed by success
he went on a long spree, buying buildings in a depressed Manhattan
(including the site ofTrump Tower), expanding into casinos in Atlantic
City and picking up a small airline. His investments over this period
were worth perhaps$5 billion in today’s money, with four-fifths of that
debt-financed. The era of humiliation came in the 1990s, as the casino
business faltered and two of his gambling entities defaulted (two other
related casino enterprises defaulted in 2004 and 2009). This
destabilised the whole of Mr Trump’s operation, which may have had as
much as $6 billion of debt in today’s prices. Through asset sales,
defaults and forbearance from his creditors, Mr Trump clung on and
avoided personal bankruptcy. As property prices in Manhattan rose he
recovered his poise, and by the early 2000s he was doing small deals
again, for example buying the Hotel Delmonico on New York’s Upper East
Side. The final stage, of celebrity, came with his starring role in the
The Apprentice in 2004. The success of the TV show, which had 28m
viewers at its peak and ran until 2015, led MrTrump to create a flurry
of ventures to cash in on his enhanced fame. He is now involved with 487
companies, up from 136 in 2004. They span hotel licensing in Azerbaijan
and energy drinks in Israel. At face value Mr Trump has turned his name
into a global brand that prints cash.
Code:
In the New York property world Mr Trump is perceived to have gone off
the boil in the past decade—“He’s been distracted,” says one broker—with
other developers doing bolder projects, such as the Fisher and Durst
families, and Gary Barnett. But there is not too much disagreement about
the value of Mr Trump’s existing buildings and golf-resorts. The
contentious bit is his branding operation. According to his FEC filings,
this generated about $68m ofincome in 2014. Valued on a multiple of ten
to reflect the fact contracts are finite, this is worth $680m. Based on
a composite of figures from the FEC, his estimates, real-estate brokers
and Forbes, Mr Trump is worth $4.3 billion.So take the contested part of personal brand inflation out of it, and he is still 'worth' 3.4 billion in mostly real estate assets as of 2016. (If all debts are accounted for, so to the best of The Economits estimations.)
The key part to put that into context is that his fathers stated net worth of 100 million USD in 1978, would have reached 6 billion USD in 2016 with an annual appreciation rate of 10.5% which is how US pension funds usually performed according to the Wiki entry. To end up at 3 billion, annual effective interest would have had to be around 9%.
In 1976 Trump boasted to a NYT reporter, that he already was worth 200 million. Which he wasnt, because at this time, it still was his fathers fortune. But lets say - that for once, he spoke the truth about the amount in that one instance - then the annual rate of return to end up at 3 billion in 2016 would have had to be 7%.
edit: The economist has a neat graph.
This is the "brand value is contested" part:
Code:
Of his wealth, only an estimated 7% is outside America and 66% is made
in New York. Only about 22% of his worth is derived from assets that he
actively created after 2004, when he became a reality TV star. Some 64%
is from conventional property and a further 17% from resorts and golf
clubs. His biggest recent deal has been in real estate: buying the Doral
hotel in 2012 out of bankruptcy. Only 11 of the licensing and branding
companies created since 2004 make more than $1m of income. Mr Trump says
there are 38 more deals in the pipeline but it is hard to know their
worth.
Last edited by notimp,
US suicide rates just spiked to the highest levels since WW2.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/juliareinstein/suicide-rate-us-highest-ww2-indigenous
And there are still more child cages and neglect cases at the US Mexican border:
Not mainstream news, ey? America confirmed great again.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/juliareinstein/suicide-rate-us-highest-ww2-indigenous
And there are still more child cages and neglect cases at the US Mexican border:
https://www.apnews.com/46da2dbe04f54adbb875cfbc06bbc615
Not mainstream news, ey? America confirmed great again.
I never watched the Oscars or any award shows, because why the fuck would I want to watch a bunch of millionaires circle jerk each other for a few hours? I never gave a shit about any of those awards.
The only award show I watched, was the video game awards, and that was only because they had surprise announcement for new games. If it wasn't for that surprise announcement, I'd skip that too. I don't give a shit about what game wins GOTY, they all slap that label on their games anyway, when they re-release it.
The only award show I watched, was the video game awards, and that was only because they had surprise announcement for new games. If it wasn't for that surprise announcement, I'd skip that too. I don't give a shit about what game wins GOTY, they all slap that label on their games anyway, when they re-release it.
All angles are so wonderfully wrong on this story - its a smorgasburg of humanity - and everything that we would call corruption if it happened in the political sphere.
Lets list them.
Basic rundown:
Social Media streaming celebrity used facial filters to attract more followers, then filters failed. Now society is trying to laugh it off.
Specifics:
Follower count was 100.000 plus - for the societal function of --
Followers where mostly male and -
Thats an issue thats commonplace since social media platforms have gained popularity. F.e. british page three (Is it page three? named after the page in yellow press papers, where the nudie pictures where printed since the 60s) models even made it to their own BBC documentary about online grafting.
But good on her then, idiot suckers - those men are, who are parting with their money for an internet fantasy - right, well...
so people got even that wrong...
Do I get more takers now for the argument, that services like the Amazon owned Twitch, are solely about developing fake parasocial relationships, and exploiting them monetarily through gamification? Its 'buy a big brother' or 'your online idol' the businessmodel.
No - still not? Well society is just too dumb then. Cant be helped.
But then, in Japan you can even rent your own fake family in RL. Apparently..
edit: Wait - I forgot the biggest one.
Yeah, right.
F*ck off.
This is the embodyment of the SJW ethos to me btw. hypocrites to the point of self-denial. So far out in space you cant even see them anymore - because of their unreflected, ballooned self egos, and enthusiasm for a form of social model - thats great and all, but just doesnt work with humans.
Or if you need that spelled out. Beautiful people are more successful in life. Statistically (beauty measured as some metric someone came up with, probably facial symmetry.). Nothing to be done about that. Just is.
Lets list them.
Basic rundown:
Social Media streaming celebrity used facial filters to attract more followers, then filters failed. Now society is trying to laugh it off.
Specifics:
Follower count was 100.000 plus - for the societal function of --
Wait, what?
Followers where mostly male and -
Thats an issue thats commonplace since social media platforms have gained popularity. F.e. british page three (Is it page three? named after the page in yellow press papers, where the nudie pictures where printed since the 60s) models even made it to their own BBC documentary about online grafting.
But good on her then, idiot suckers - those men are, who are parting with their money for an internet fantasy - right, well...
F*ck, so she really grafted actively, huh?
So it is mostly about looks then, huh? How odd...
No, no, no - this is an active attempt at defrauding people and soliciting money payments for tokens of sympathy - this is not something that society is sympathetic to. So sorry.
And you know for sure, that she did so, because she didn't want to adress the elephant in the room, because she wasnt sure of the social repercussions at that moment. Thats the exact opposite of brave -
so people got even that wrong...
Do I get more takers now for the argument, that services like the Amazon owned Twitch, are solely about developing fake parasocial relationships, and exploiting them monetarily through gamification? Its 'buy a big brother' or 'your online idol' the businessmodel.
No - still not? Well society is just too dumb then. Cant be helped.
But then, in Japan you can even rent your own fake family in RL. Apparently..
edit: Wait - I forgot the biggest one.
Yeah, right.
F*ck off.
This is the embodyment of the SJW ethos to me btw. hypocrites to the point of self-denial. So far out in space you cant even see them anymore - because of their unreflected, ballooned self egos, and enthusiasm for a form of social model - thats great and all, but just doesnt work with humans.
Or if you need that spelled out. Beautiful people are more successful in life. Statistically (beauty measured as some metric someone came up with, probably facial symmetry.
). Nothing to be done about that. Just is.
Last edited by notimp,
what are your thoughts on the consolidation of the internet and/or the mass scale commercialization of it? Has this affected accessibility of information? as well as the truthfulness and accuracy of information? Do we as a collective society have a right to it and if so to what extent? And if not why not?
Wikipedia is a bigger issue thats largely 'fixed' by self governing structures currently - where you have people with a personal motivation to 'get their contributions right' and for others not to continue them in a 'wrong' manner. Thats how you solve most of that. You also seem to need hirarchies, and the problem seemingly gets bigger, if people have less stakes in 'their work being used' - because for example 'the bulk of articles already has been written'.
Aside from that, there apparently is a movement back into more 'exclusive' secluded spaces (subgroups), where people can be acting more in loose friendship kind of structures, than in constant "deal with all the public" "on all the things" configurations.
I dont want to be naive about it - if you give everyone a say - and incentivize by popularity - you get an outcome probably similar to what we have today.
I'm not necessarily 'sad' about it, and I never really thought about how you could reverse it. Make cool more exclusive clubs - I guess. But then, always attend to the public needs as well.
The issue becomes rather, where the public would be willing to act against their lets say long term interest, by trying to game some of the new 'potentials' 'too well'. I think, that for that you'd need some form of regulation. And at that point it starts to become very complex, because you want it to be impartial. (So you need separation of power, and...)
edit: For the immediate problem of defrauding parasocial relationships with "filtered" webcam images. Thats probably mostly "get people somewhat educated, that this is an issue". And then thats it. Its not a huge problem, I imagine.
Aside from that, there apparently is a movement back into more 'exclusive' secluded spaces (subgroups), where people can be acting more in loose friendship kind of structures, than in constant "deal with all the public" "on all the things" configurations.
I dont want to be naive about it - if you give everyone a say - and incentivize by popularity - you get an outcome probably similar to what we have today.
I'm not necessarily 'sad' about it, and I never really thought about how you could reverse it. Make cool more exclusive clubs - I guess. But then, always attend to the public needs as well.
The issue becomes rather, where the public would be willing to act against their lets say long term interest, by trying to game some of the new 'potentials' 'too well'. I think, that for that you'd need some form of regulation. And at that point it starts to become very complex, because you want it to be impartial. (So you need separation of power, and...)
edit: For the immediate problem of defrauding parasocial relationships with "filtered" webcam images. Thats probably mostly "get people somewhat educated, that this is an issue". And then thats it. Its not a huge problem, I imagine.
Last edited by notimp,
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2006
- Messages
- 3,810
- Trophies
- 2
- Location
- USA MTN timezone
- Website
- Visit site
- XP
- 3,290
- Country
You can be anti-Trump, you can be anti-PC, but if you're trying to push both, you're gonna end up with a very small coalition.
Don't be so divisive. Life and politics are very complex, it would be foolish to adopt a black-and-white perspective.
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2006
- Messages
- 3,810
- Trophies
- 2
- Location
- USA MTN timezone
- Website
- Visit site
- XP
- 3,290
- Country
I stand by my statement, you're not gonna find many people who are both anti-pc and anti-Trump. It doesn't add up.
There's more than Republican and Democrat (and their equivalents around the world). You're forgetting about Libertarians, anarchists, socialists, communists, fascists, and many others who may be for or against many different ideas, even within each individual following.
I don't know why I'm even bothering to say this, but I am. I think that both political correctness and Donald Trump have gone too far. Did you know that there are more than two political viewpoints? Or do you actually believe that there is just "left" and "right" on a "political spectrum"
Only in your gerneration.
Remember - you are the ones that started to optimize yourselves for facebook and instagram likes, the same as your parents did, at the time - while thinking it was youth culture.
You never rebelled against important positions in your lives - because it would have cost you followers. You made SJWs a thing, because it allowed you to rebell against injustice that nobody cared about - so your follower counts werent affected.
You learned how to fake smiles, identities, interest, loyalty, importance, ...
Isn't that what PC is all about?
Isnt that why its so marketing compatible - and everyone can sell products these days - even Snookie?
I'm asking, because David Spade has now a show that is trying to rebrand Instagram as a place - thats also where edgy comedians could hang out - in an effort to make social media a place that doesnt ruin mental health.
(Just saw the first two episodes, its still at the top of my mind.)
Its even working in concept.
I like it, because its edgy. 90% of your generation like, it because he comes into the venue live streaming, shareing the experience - that is, his own Comedy Central show...
You know Comedy Central, the place that booked Jon Stewart for 16 years.
Also, do you know Southpark? Do you think Trey Parker and Matt Stone are political? Because they invented a Charakter called PC principal - that kind of says stuff, and then fails to keep the act up throughout his actions, does the entire opposite, but doesnt see the irony in that - because he is focused solely on his self image to others.
Everyone is trying to tell younger generations something that goes a little bit like that.
Stop being so conformist. Stop crusading for stuff that doesnt matter to the vast majority of people - just because it ensures that you can act socially caring - but also not raffle any feathers in general.
Take a stance for something for once in your life - and don't poll yourself to happiness through followernumbers.
You are being socially manipulated, to become the oldest generation that ever was - at age 14+
And its so effing socially compatible - because thas all you care about.
Not issues - likes and followers. And feels. And celebrity. And.. Thats all.
Now - this isn't PC, but its the freaking truth. (To me.
)Now lets all have elite festivals, where we tell each other everyone should be taught how to get 2000 followers, and all of this will work out, forever.
Again: https://alpbach.apa-ots-video.at/video/5333013067a14a6eb3013067a17a6ef3
(I'm not quite over that one yet.
)
Last edited by notimp,
Boy, you must have hated - whoever produced that (marketing) message in 1997.
Didn't he have Facebook, back then?
edit: Might have to explain why PC culture to me is connected with (marketing compatible) self censorship and whitewashing.
First, because thats what pays on the internet (through the ad economy) these days. (Current sociodemographic backdrop. (Historians would need to know that in the future. ))
Second, because you have two ways of dealing with more 'extreme' opinions, if you are resorting to PC. The first one is taking the high road, with doesnt work in popular social settings, the second one is 'social shunning'. That then removes certain viewpoints entirely from view.
Now - there is a place and time for PC language (diplomacy, news, science (although I wouldnt call it PC there), ...), but then - the most effective way to deal with 'non PC language arguments' is to address them on all possible levels. And if a non PC outburst transports emotion, address that emotion as well - don't just say its wrong or unwanted. People certainly don't talk with PC filters on when they are in private and conversing with their friends - so in day to day use it would now become a filter you are demanding that everyone uses - which is also not that great, or healthy. Now - I'm not advertising cultural blindness, or to simply say what you are thinking regardless of social setting, but if you insist on it - and it results in social shunning, what have you really gained?
Basically I'm saying - the way to handle trolling is not to just 'block it out' entirely and act as if it doesnt exist. Adress causes, not language. Limit social taboos only to the really problematic stuff. Not base language used in daily life.
Didn't he have Facebook, back then?
edit: Might have to explain why PC culture to me is connected with (marketing compatible) self censorship and whitewashing.
First, because thats what pays on the internet (through the ad economy) these days. (Current sociodemographic backdrop. (Historians would need to know that in the future.
))Second, because you have two ways of dealing with more 'extreme' opinions, if you are resorting to PC. The first one is taking the high road, with doesnt work in popular social settings, the second one is 'social shunning'. That then removes certain viewpoints entirely from view.
Now - there is a place and time for PC language (diplomacy, news, science (although I wouldnt call it PC there), ...), but then - the most effective way to deal with 'non PC language arguments' is to address them on all possible levels. And if a non PC outburst transports emotion, address that emotion as well - don't just say its wrong or unwanted. People certainly don't talk with PC filters on when they are in private and conversing with their friends - so in day to day use it would now become a filter you are demanding that everyone uses - which is also not that great, or healthy. Now - I'm not advertising cultural blindness, or to simply say what you are thinking regardless of social setting, but if you insist on it - and it results in social shunning, what have you really gained?
Basically I'm saying - the way to handle trolling is not to just 'block it out' entirely and act as if it doesnt exist. Adress causes, not language. Limit social taboos only to the really problematic stuff. Not base language used in daily life.
Last edited by notimp,
Similar threads
-
- Locked
-
Xdqwerty
what are you looking at?
