"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

That's an overused quote, but applicable here.

As per usual, Trump's logic is confusing to the point that its impenetrable. Here's what bothers me.

1. He implies that poor people are uninformed about the economy, which is a...weird conclusion. I know for a fact that children that grow up in a poor household always have a worse education than people who don't. From that standpoint, I guess Trump is right, but he's not nominating a child to that position, he's nominating an adult, which is entirely different. An adult can be poor for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with whether they are knowledgeable about the economy or not. That brings me to my next point which is...
2. According to Trump's daughter, Trump was greatly in debt at some point, yet he considers himself to be an outstanding businessman—and more importantly, he maintained that he was a good businessman during this indeterminable period of low SES. That flies in the face of what he's implying here with this quote.
3. We don't know if Trump is actually a good businessman because we don't have his financial history (i.e., his tax returns.) If he was poor at the same time he was claiming to be a good businessman, he's again contradicting himself.

To be fair, I'm pretty certain that anyone who would be qualified for that (or any other) cabinet position wouldn't be poor (which I'm defining by the poverty line of ~22k/yr). Of course, this is far from hiring an exorbitantly rich businessman who built his legacy off of shady tactics, but it still stands.

Somebody saying they want an individual with no serious financial success track record in the position Trump is talking about is like saying you want somebody who paints fences for a living doing open heart surgery on you: I'm sure he could try, but the results would speak for themselves.

Love him or hate him, Trump has been successful in business. He's never been in a position where he's never had some form of cashflow equally hundreds of millions from one thing or another. Going through bankruptcy a few times doesn't disqualify that, since he's bounced back numerous times and continues to grow his core brand.

Its fine to debate the merits of Trump's policy decisions (since I don't agree with the majority of his cabinet picks either), but his income statements speak for themselves. His debt doesn't come anywhere near his total cashflow.

Being a businessman would be great for a politician if the government operated anything like a business or if macroeconomics could be managed in a parallel way to microeconomics.

The government at its core does operate like a business in some ways, but it has so many other interests and responsibilities outside of that. It doesn't help that there are segments that are 20-30 years behind your average startup in regards to process and technology though.

Looking forward to seeing this particular initiative actually take off.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN19A16Q

Actually, based on that argument, the person you would want in charge of economic policy would be an economist not a random rich person.

^ Yeah, that too.

You're dead wrong there, he's probably the most successful charlatan and demagogue in the game right now.

Maybe of all time.

https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/...bate-wrong.jpg

Not only because there's not a hard rule for the role of government, but also because if you have employees then you're a business, like it or not!