Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Trump Deal With It

So today is the day.

Today Donald J. Trump will formally accept the nomination of the Grand Old Party to be their candidate in the Presidential Election of 2016. Therefore it is befitting of your humble blogger to write a few words, …bah to formally endorse Donald J. Trump for the Office of the President of the United States of American.

The reasons for my endorsement… wholehearted endorsement are many and I will try to highlight just the most important ones below. What I will also do is diverge from the normal modus operandi where I try to keep to an OBJECTIVE analysis on this blog and begin on a personal note (SUBJECTIVE JUDGEMENT).

On a personal note

Many years ago, I had the privilege to sit on the Board of Directors of a small company. At this time, the company was in the process of being sold. The company by-laws (covenants) were very restrictive as to the entity to which the company could be sold. Furthermore, what made my position precarious was that I represented the minority shareholders. The Board numbered 9 directors; 5 representing  majority shareholder and 4 representing the minority shareholder. My role/situation was very passive in nature in the sense that there was not a lot that I could have done to influence the outcome of the sale process. Not that I had any intention of doing so. At the onset of the process that is.

As the situation developed, the last two candidates who were ultimately chosen as prospective buyer turned out to be… to put it mildly: DODGY. The only difference between the two from what I could discern at the time was that one was a successfully wealth DODGY businessman while the other was in essence insolvent. And to my horror, observing how the process was developing, it appeared as if the insolvent DODGY candidate was being favored to take over the majority shareholding of the company.  So this was the lay of the land going into the Board meeting that was to decide the outcome of the sale process.

Before the meeting commenced, the minority shareholders decided to form a pact and to vote for the sale to both prospective candidates. Not selling the company was not an option.  It was decided that this course of action would allow the majority shareholder to pick, to which of the two prospective candidate they wanted the company sold.

As the meeting started, one of the 5 Board Members representing the majority shareholder tendered his resignation effective immediately and left the meeting. This created a new situation in that now the majority and minority shareholder representatives had an equal number of votes. Yet the majority shareholder had the presidency of the Board so he had an advantage in the case of any tie under a secret ballot (it was a secret ballot vote) since the by-laws stipulated that in case of a tie, the head of the Board would have the deciding vote.

In the voting itself, as it turned out after the vote count, the directors representing the majority voted against the sale to both candidates. It would appear that they did not want to be responsible in case the company was sold to the insolvent DODGY candidate. But it would also appear, and was later confirmed, that the Chairman of the Board made undertakings to back the insolvent DODGY candidate in case of a tie. Therefore, they decided to vote against the sale, allowing the minority shareholders to decide and nominally take on the responsibility, while the Chairman would have the power to make the decision at the end of the process. On the side of the Board members representing the minority shareholders, ALL with the exception of ONE, voted to sell to the insolvent DODGEY candidate while ALL voted to sell to the successfully wealth DODGEY candidate.

Needless to say, I was the one who broke ranks and voted against the insolvent DODGEY candidate. The basis on which I made my decision was that since the successfully wealthy DODGEY candidate was… successfully wealthy, he would have much less of an incentive to badly manage the company. What was at stake were tangible assets on the company books that could have been sold off, and help with the insolvency issue of the insolvent DODGEY candidate.

The decision I made turned out to be a wise decision. It has been 17 years since that vote and the company is still in existence. The ownership structure has change over the years, but the business is still ongoing.

Precedents for a Trump Endorsement

Which brings me to the moral of the story. It is better to place ones trust in rich folks than in less rich folks. The reason is simple, they are rich already. They don’t need to pander to even richer folks so that they can become rich(er) themselves. (see here and here) Furthermore, since they are successful, and rich, they most likely have higher aspirations, since the marginal $1m means a lot less to them then to the less rich folks (see here). Therefore, their aspirations can be things like turning a business/country around, making the company/government run efficiently, or just their place in history.

The above is not a hard nor fast rule. It is a general rule of thumb. As to the supporting evidence, I have two that I will put down for your consideration:

The case of Silvio Berlusconi.

Silvio Berlusconi was a very rich individual. He also formed a coalition, the Forza Italia and became the most successful Prime Minister in post-war Italian history. Just how successful was he? Until Silvio Berlusconi came to power, Italy had: Since the end of World War II, Italy has had 13 legislatures with 60 governments, led by 24 prime ministers, many rotating in and out of Palazzo Chigi multiple times. The average duration of Italian governments is just about 13 months”, YET  “Berlusconi’s three stints as prime minister have all been above that mark. His last government so far lasted three-and-a-half years, making Italy seemingly as stable and orderly as the United Kingdom, France or Germany”. (see here)

You would think the Italian and European establishment would be happy with Silvio?

They were not.

And the manor in which Silvio Berluscone was removed as the Prime Minister of Italy was nothing short of a coup d’etat (see here).  Which raises the question, why? The reason why Bersluscone was overthrown is because he threatened to take Italy out of the Euro currency.  The Euro currency was a disaster for Italy. And Silvio being a businessman, a disaster for him personally. The Italians are poorer today in real terms than they they were in 2008 when they left the Lira and joint the Euroarea, while their national debt has doubled. Berlusconi realized this and wanted to correct this EPIC FAIL NEO-MODERNIST EXPERIMENT™ in monetary policy. And for this, he was deposed.

So what is the moral of this story? The reason Berlusconi could allow himself even to consider such a move was because he was rich. Or to look at it from the side of the Euro elite in Brussels, he could not be bought off.

The case of Jaroslaw Kaczynski (Poland) and Victor Orban (Hungary)

The second example comes from Hungary and Poland. For those who are watching the saga of what the RATIONAL government of Hungary went through, and now what the RATIONAL government of Poland is going through, brought on by the International/European Leftist elites can only be horrified. I will focus on Poland but the same dynamic is at work in Hungary. For a more detailed treatment of Poland, see here.

The skinny w/r/t Poland is as follows: After the establishment candidate and sitting president lost the first round of the presidential election last year, the then ruling party got together and decided to change the law with respect to appointing judges to the State Tribunal (Polish Supreme Court equivalent). The change they introduced would give them control over striking down all laws that the new government enacted until the next election cycle in 4 years time.

When the new government came into power (Law & Justice Party), they quickly struck down this novelty. And the reaction from the European elites and the Leftist International was swift and brutal, charging Poland with breaking the rule of law and starting down the road to dictatorship.

At the same time, the Turkish prime minister is turning Turkey into a one party state, purging opponents (50,000 in the span of one week) with the approval of those same European elites (see here).

Which brings me to why the different reaction in the respective cases. On the side of Turkey, the EU is being blackmailed since if they don’t back Erdogan’s seizure of absolute power, Erdogan will open the flood gates for the illegal immigrants that he is housing in Turkey.

As to the Poles and the Hungarians, the problem that the European elites and the Leftist International have is that the leaders of the respective countries, Victor Organ in Hungary and Jaroslaw Kaczynski CANNOT be bought off. They are idealists, not IDEOLOGUES and RATIONALISTS. They are acting in the best interest of their respective countries as they see them and in conformity with natural law. But the overriding problem is that these two leaders CANNOT be bought off.

Case for Donald J. Trump

Which brings me to Donald J. Trump. From what I have observed, Donald Trump is a man similar to Silvio Berlusconi in many respects. He is very successful and independently wealthy, whose motivation appears to be higher than just the next $1m that he will make. It also appears to me that what is motivating Mr. Trump is that he wants to restructure the US government in a similar manner in which he restructured some of the businesses that he took over and brought back to profitability.

On a higher level, what I see in Donald Trump is man with a RATIONAL decision making process. His decision making process is inherently based on a cost and benefit paradigm. Just yesterday he made a statement that he would not automatically defend any NATO member country. That is, he would not automatically defend that country until he established: “only if that country fulfilled its obligation to us”. In other words, that country had military spending at the 2%+ of their Gross Domestic Product. Only 3 NATO members presently meet that criteria. This is RATIONAL and a much greater deterrent to any potential aggressor than the status quo.

And lastly, on to the even larger issue about what is motivating Mr. Trump to run for the White House. In a post that appeared at the Zero Hedge website (see here), a close friend of Mr. Trump, one Mr. Thomas Barrack published a 12-page treatiese on the economy, at the same time giving an insight into the thinking of Mr. Donald J. Trump. Here is how the leftist new organization Bloomberg set up the piece:

The paper is in no way an official statement from the Trump campaign; it reflects only Barrack’s personal views. But Trump, a real-estate developer and reality-TV star with no experience in public service, relies on friends and family for advice more than many politicians do. Barrack is scheduled to speak at the Republican convention in Cleveland this week where Trump will be officially named the party’s nominee.

And the reason that understanding of the above is of critical importance is as follows:

The world is moving at warp speed, as are all the things within it. In order to keep up, we too need to move and adapt or be lost in the black hole of entrenchment and entitlement. Many decades ago, Winston Churchill wrote a series of essays predicting the ever more dizzying pace of change in the modern world. It could not and must not be stopped, but he worried that mankind might have so much more, yet be unhappier than before. “Their hearts will ache, their lives will be barren, if they have not a vision above material things,” he wrote. We need to be reminded about the “simple questions which man has asked since the earliest dawn of reason,” about the meaning, purpose, and ends of mankind – in other words, the same kind of questions that led America’s Founders to declare the self-evident truth that all human beings are created equal. As we question the status quo and chip away at the corrosion that attends old thoughts, ideas, and institutions, we must not fail to keep in mind the difference between material things that are always changing and the abiding truths that have made America great.

What more can one expect from a businessman in this day and age. Yet the NORMALIZATION process has started…

Summa summarum.

The reason that the Deus Ex Machina endorses Mr. Donald J. Trump for the Presidency of the United States of America is primarily due to the fact that Mr. Trump has been and is a very successful businessman. The reason that Mr. Trump is a very successful businessman is that he has formed a RATIONAL thought and decision making process. This RATIONAL decision making process is the antithesis of an IDEOLOGY (see here)since it MUST be POSITIVISTIC in nature (see here). In other words, it conforms to the laws of nature irrespective of whether Mr. Trump personally agrees with the outcomes or not.

Furthermore, Mr. Trump wants to be a successful President because he has what is euphemistically termed “skin in the game”. Mr. Trump’s businesses cater to real people. What I mean by this is that if Mr. Trump is successful as POTUS, the US economy will rebound and in turn his companies will be more successful  in the process. Not because he will be able to steer contracts to them, but because if the US economy recovers, as we all know, a rising tide lifts all boats. Therefore there is a proper principal/agent relationship (see here) in place whereby, and if for no other reason, the more successful Mr. Trump is as POTUS, the more money his business interests will make.

But this is not to say that Mr. Trump is solely driven by economic motivations. We can discern this not only by Mr. Barrack’s testimony but also by reflecting on the Republican Party platform that was formed in large part with Mr. Trump’s backing. As our friends at the Conservative Tribune, and not only them, noted: While that certainly is still a possibility, it is looking increasingly unlikely, as the Republican Party just passed what is being called the “most conservative platform” in GOP history. (see here)

Now, this is not to say that Mr. Trump will abide by this platform. But what your humble blogger will say is this:

If there is a candidate for political office or politician anywhere in the Continantal United States of America or its territories who is better placed to exectute this platform, that person is Donald J. Trump. And the reasons are those stated above.

Therefore, it is with the highest recommendations that your lowly humble blogger and the Deus Ex Machina Blog endorse

Mr. Donald J. Trump for the office of the President of the United States of America.

 

 GOD BLESS AMERICA!

Advertisements