I am not going to defend or criticize President Trump in this thread. Please deposit your "I love Trump" or "I hate Trump" posts in another thread.
What I want to attack-unpack in this thread is this notion that, because President Trump did not very well in business, that he is a bad leader. Here is an example of this in the New Yorker:
The New Yorker wrote:Between 1985 and 1994, the Times story says, Trump’s core businesses lost money every single year, and the accumulated losses came to more than a billion dollars.
This idea, that business acumen creates great leader, or that lack of business acumen creates bad leaders, is based on the greed-is-good mantra of North American and European capitalism. The railroad barons, for example, were behind N.A.'s politics in the 19th Century, making money hand over fist (while genociding any First Nations that got in the way, and by employing slave labor from China). Was this a good form of leadership?
Likewise, the fact that Trump was unsuccessful at increasing his fortune means what, exactly?
1. That he wasn't sneaky and underhanded enough?
2. That he put too much value into the company of his friends and associates, and therefore, didn't stab enough people in the back?
3. He was too transparent and sincere to skim money from all his transactions?
4. That his selfishness doesn't always rise to the surface?
Would our commercial media prefer to have a great money-maker in power, like Bezos or Soros? Are these guys the perfect image of leadership? Would they do better by average people? Are they less menally ill because they're incredibly rich and turned a small amount of money into a huge pile?
letting corporations run your government
is like letting cannibals run your cafeteria