26 minutes ago, mr_hunt said:

 

you're the donald trump of posting. 

 

hopefully that answers your question. 

No! It doesn't! 

14 minutes ago, MidMoFo said:

— By David Honig

 

The best, most cogent and elegantly simple explanation into the  negotiating processes of the president, by Prof. David Honig of Indiana University.

Everybody I know should read this accurate and enlightening piece...

"I’m going to get a little wonky and write about Donald Trump and negotiations. For those who don't know, I'm an adjunct professor at Indiana University - Robert H. McKinney School of Law and I teach negotiations. Okay, here goes.

Trump, as most of us know, is the credited author of "The Art of the Deal," a book that was actually ghost written by a man named Tony Schwartz, who was given access to Trump and wrote based upon his observations. If you've read The Art of the Deal, or if you've followed Trump lately, you'll know, even if you didn't know the label, that he sees all dealmaking as what we call "distributive bargaining."

Distributive bargaining always has a winner and a loser. It happens when there is a fixed quantity of something and two sides are fighting over how it gets distributed. Think of it as a pie and you're fighting over who gets how many pieces. In Trump's world, the bargaining was for a building, or for construction work, or subcontractors. He perceives a successful bargain as one in which there is a winner and a loser, so if he pays less than the seller wants, he wins. The more he saves the more he wins.

The other type of bargaining is called integrative bargaining. In integrative bargaining the two sides don't have a complete conflict of interest, and it is possible to reach mutually beneficial agreements. Think of it, not a single pie to be divided by two hungry people, but as a baker and a caterer negotiating over how many pies will be baked at what prices, and the nature of their ongoing relationship after this one gig is over.

The problem with Trump is that he sees only distributive bargaining in an international world that requires integrative bargaining. He can raise tariffs, but so can other countries. He can't demand they not respond. There is no defined end to the negotiation and there is no simple winner and loser. There are always more pies to be baked. Further, negotiations aren't binary. China's choices aren't (a) buy soybeans from US farmers, or (b) don't buy soybeans. They can also (c) buy soybeans from Russia, or Argentina, or Brazil, or Canada, etc. That completely strips the distributive bargainer of his power to win or lose, to control the negotiation.

One of the risks of distributive bargaining is bad will. In a one-time distributive bargain, e.g. negotiating with the cabinet maker in your casino about whether you're going to pay his whole bill or demand a discount, you don't have to worry about your ongoing credibility or the next deal. If you do that to the cabinet maker, you can bet he won't agree to do the cabinets in your next casino, and you're going to have to find another cabinet maker.

There isn't another Canada.

So when you approach international negotiation, in a world as complex as ours, with integrated economies and multiple buyers and sellers, you simply must approach them through integrative bargaining. If you attempt distributive bargaining, success is  impossible. And we see that already.

Trump has raised tariffs on China. China responded, in addition to raising tariffs on US goods, by dropping all its soybean orders from the US and buying them from Russia. The effect is not only to cause tremendous harm to US farmers, but also to increase Russian revenue, making Russia less susceptible to sanctions and boycotts, increasing its economic and political power in the world, and reducing ours. Trump saw steel and aluminum and thought it would be an easy win, BECAUSE HE SAW ONLY STEEL AND ALUMINUM - HE SEES EVERY NEGOTIATION AS DISTRIBUTIVE. China saw it as integrative, and integrated Russia and its soybean purchase orders into a far more complex negotiation ecosystem.

Trump has the same weakness politically. For every winner there must be a loser. And that's just not how politics works, not over the long run.

For people who study negotiations, this is incredibly basic stuff, negotiations 101, definitions you learn before you even start talking about styles and tactics. And here's another huge problem for us.

Trump is utterly convinced that his experience in a closely held real estate company has prepared him to run a nation, and therefore he rejects the advice of people who spent entire careers studying the nuances of international negotiations and diplomacy. But the leaders on the other side of the table have not eschewed expertise, they have embraced it. And that means they look at Trump and, given his very limited tool chest and his blindly distributive understanding of negotiation, they know exactly what he is going to do and exactly how to respond to it. 

From a professional negotiation point of view, Trump isn't even bringing checkers to a chess match. He's bringing a quarter that he insists of flipping for heads or tails, while everybody else is studying the chess board to decide whether its better to open with Najdorf or Grünfeld.”
 

 

I always thought his economic views were too simplistic, but this makes a lot of sense.

1 hour ago, MidMoFo said:

Social Security is meant to be a security net when plans go wrong, not a full retirement plan. A spouse dies unexpectedly and leaves a widow with 3 kids starting over. An actual retirement plan is mismanaged and isn’t enough or someone never made enough money to build a plan in the first place.

Realistically, someone planning to retire with a 401k or IRA will need around 800k saved at retirement. What percentage of working people right now do you think have or will have that when they reach retirement age? I’m guessing 25-30%.

The problem, as is now painfully obvious, is that the average American is dumb. Their stupidity causes them make bad financial decisions, bad health decisions, and as history has shown, bad electoral decisions. I think a lot of it boils down to education. They can be taught and coerced into making small incremental gains in knowledge to the point where they start making fewer bad decisions over time. But it does take time and effort, and often times the light bulb goes on far too late in life. By then, they're already in poor health; financially, physically, mentally, etc. 

And to be clear, this isn't a "be less poor" argument, it's a "be less stupid with the money you do have" argument. Which usually requires taking on short-term pain for long-term gain. It means having the discipline to save and invest an amount of money that a majority of people would easily spend without giving it a second thought. It means doing things that involve math, like having a monthly budget and setting savings goals. Shortly after college, I was told that by the time I turned 40, my 401k balance should have grown to be roughly 3x my income. I set a goal to have 4x instead, and ended coming up just short of 5x.

But as I mentioned, if nobody is teaching you this stuff, then it's not something most people will seek out and learn on their own. Even the most obvious financial landmines are being stampeded on in the age where most answers are found within a couple minutes of a google search. I'm still absolutely dumbfounded by the number of people who aren't paying off credit cards in full and aren't maxing out their employer's 401k match. The 401k match is literally free money and they're basically like, "Nah, I'm good, I'd rather the company keep that money that I worked so hard for. They need it more than me!"

6 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:

You don't have to.

'Murica

stop laughing at me 

I see you @Dave Moss and @we_gotta_believe 

I'll write disparaging poetry about both of you!

We know many of the mental midgets in CVON are pissed about this - albeit only out of spite.

3 minutes ago, Procus said:

We know many of the mental midgets in CVON are pissed about this - albeit only out of spite.

So you are guaranteeing that no more fentanyl will enter the country?  You do know that the vast majority is carried in by US citizens, right?

 

4 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

So you are guaranteeing that no more fentanyl will enter the country?  You do know that the vast majority is carried in by US citizens, right?

Good point, but not a good excuse to turn a blind eye to fentanyl being smuggled in by non-citizens

Am I the only day-drinker here?

I feel like I owe you all an apology.

Just now, Procus said:

Good point, but not a good excuse to turn a blind eye to fentanyl being smuggled in by non-citizens

Of course not but a new verbal pledge by Canada/Mexico to work on stopping the flow isn't going to do jack sheet.  We've been trying and failing to stop illegal drugs from entering the country since long before you or I drew our first breath.  This is all just political theater when it comes to fentanyl.

7 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

 

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-safety-canada/news/2024/12/the-government-of-canadas-border-plan-significant-investments-to-strengthen-border-security-and-our-immigration-system.html

This border plan was documented over a month ago. Nothing to do with Trump

 

I'm certain Brandon Wright knows that the DHS fell on his head just as they frog marched his ass out the door. 😆

 

"By the time the actual marching orders get to me and below, we can filter it in a way that steadies the ship,” he said.

Brandon Wright said Kristi Noem is so incompetent that the DHS "could fall on her head and she wouldn’t know what it is.”

"Kristi Noem doesn’t know crap,” he said.

7 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Of course not but a new verbal pledge by Canada/Mexico to work on stopping the flow isn't going to do jack sheet.  We've been trying and failing to stop illegal drugs from entering the country since long before you or I drew our first breath.  This is all just political theater when it comes to fentanyl.

Yeah but sounds good in a headline to sell to his cult base. And thats all that matters

Trudeau promises to appoint a border czar and help fight the imaginary flow of fent from Canada and all of a sudden no tariffs and MAGA takes a victory lap. 

I can write these scripts all day long.

Back in reality, Trump quietly got bent over the Resolute Desk by his corporate donors who told him to find a way out of the tariffs immediately. 

2 minutes ago, mayanh8 said:

Trudeau promises to appoint a border czar and help fight the imaginary flow of fent from Canada and all of a sudden no tariffs and MAGA takes a victory lap. 

I can write these scripts all day long.

It is on the plot level of a Harlequin romance paperback.  He's moved from checkers down to tic tac toe.

Handling all the most important things.  

3 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

It is on the plot level of a Harlequin romance paperback.  He's moved from checkers down to tic tac toe.

TBH I'm encouraged by the fact that he still follows the orders of his corporate swamp masters. It puts a cap on the amount of damage he can do.

1 minute ago, mayanh8 said:

TBH I'm encouraged by the fact that he still follows the orders of his corporate swamp masters. It puts a cap on the amount of damage he can do.

One thing I'm looking forward to is the day he names dogecoin as a formal US strategic reserve.  I want to watch the bitcoin heads explode.

So much winning in such a short period of time

2 hours ago, mr_hunt said:

 

you're the donald trump of posting. 

 

hopefully that answers your question. 

Stop it.  He's undeserving of the compliment

So much winning 

 

 

16 minutes ago, Procus said:

So much winning in such a short period of time

This is such a bad idea.