Actually, to try and help highlight the viewpoint I’m describing, in light of what you’re putting out, let me try to frame this stuff a little differently.
Consider something like the CEO of Blackberry. His company is now essentially defunct, in part due to the lack of security and stolen IP, but also because they screwed up their business market dominance by trying to chase the retail market when Apple/google started showing up. His business is toast, and for the sake of argument, let’s say the CEO now lives a basic lifestyle, with very little to his name – most likely he’s living pretty damn good though, in reality, but likely not “ultra rich” wealthy.
At the height of his wealth curve, he’d be viewed as a successful business man. At the nadir of his wealth curve, he’s a failure.
Business people are often considered successful or not based on their current positions and most recent endeavours, and their overall hoard of wealth. Given that the apprentice ‘saved’ him, anytime after the apprentice it’d be reasonable to say Trump’s a successful business person, even if he was drastically inflating the actual numbers associated with his wealth. Even if he’d previously failed a bunch. There are lots of entrepeneurs that will see their efforts fail a bunch at the start, and if they have enough wealth they’ll often eventually succeed. Doesn’t make it less of a success when it happens, in some ways.
And now that he’s managed to leverage that into owning America, his profit’s gone up exponentially – for both himself and his entire family line. So by American standards, that’s pretty successful. And we all know there’ll be no accountability, especially not for his family.
The last paragraph highlights something else as well: those who define this way of being as “success” are quite empty of substance. These shouldn’t be American standards of success. It’s up to us what our definition of success is. I reject Trump as any example of success.
At the height of his wealth curve, he’d be viewed as a successful business man.
I guess you’re using Research in Motion as an example of a company that went up and went back down, and are picturing some imaginary CEO, not Mike Lazaridis or Doug Fregin who were the co-CEOs of RIM, but are no longer with the company.
The difference from Trump is that this imaginary “Blackberry CEO” took a company that was worth nothing and then made it into a company that was one of the most influential in the world. That “zero to hero” story is something Trump never did. He started at the peak, with half a billion dollars he inherited / stole from his dad, and then he went down from there.
To be considered a “successful businessman” you have to make something worth more than it was previously worth. That’s not something Trump ever achieved.
Jay Gould was considered a successful businessman because he grew up in poverty and then became a multi-millionaire (a billionaire in today’s dollars). His son George Jay Gould isn’t considered a successful businessman because all he did was inherit his dad’s company and didn’t meaningfully increase its value.
Fred Trump was a successful businessman because he made the fortune that Donald Trump squandered.
And how much money has Trump made pillaging America? Pretty sure he’s got most of those folks beat. Heck, Jared Kushner got like $2billion from the Saudis to play around with, and that was just one of the kickbacks to Trump’s family orbit. Pretty successful at enriching themselves – Gould become a billionaire, Trump’s become a multi-billionaire and made his family connections all billionaires in their own right aswell.
To be considered a “successful businessman” you have to make something worth more than it was previously worth. That’s not something Trump ever achieved.
Trumps made himself worth more than he was previously worth. He’s also made his family and friends worth more than they were previously worth. So he fits your definition of being a successful businessman.
Actually, to try and help highlight the viewpoint I’m describing, in light of what you’re putting out, let me try to frame this stuff a little differently.
Consider something like the CEO of Blackberry. His company is now essentially defunct, in part due to the lack of security and stolen IP, but also because they screwed up their business market dominance by trying to chase the retail market when Apple/google started showing up. His business is toast, and for the sake of argument, let’s say the CEO now lives a basic lifestyle, with very little to his name – most likely he’s living pretty damn good though, in reality, but likely not “ultra rich” wealthy.
At the height of his wealth curve, he’d be viewed as a successful business man. At the nadir of his wealth curve, he’s a failure.
Business people are often considered successful or not based on their current positions and most recent endeavours, and their overall hoard of wealth. Given that the apprentice ‘saved’ him, anytime after the apprentice it’d be reasonable to say Trump’s a successful business person, even if he was drastically inflating the actual numbers associated with his wealth. Even if he’d previously failed a bunch. There are lots of entrepeneurs that will see their efforts fail a bunch at the start, and if they have enough wealth they’ll often eventually succeed. Doesn’t make it less of a success when it happens, in some ways.
And now that he’s managed to leverage that into owning America, his profit’s gone up exponentially – for both himself and his entire family line. So by American standards, that’s pretty successful. And we all know there’ll be no accountability, especially not for his family.
The last paragraph highlights something else as well: those who define this way of being as “success” are quite empty of substance. These shouldn’t be American standards of success. It’s up to us what our definition of success is. I reject Trump as any example of success.
I guess you’re using Research in Motion as an example of a company that went up and went back down, and are picturing some imaginary CEO, not Mike Lazaridis or Doug Fregin who were the co-CEOs of RIM, but are no longer with the company.
The difference from Trump is that this imaginary “Blackberry CEO” took a company that was worth nothing and then made it into a company that was one of the most influential in the world. That “zero to hero” story is something Trump never did. He started at the peak, with half a billion dollars he inherited / stole from his dad, and then he went down from there.
To be considered a “successful businessman” you have to make something worth more than it was previously worth. That’s not something Trump ever achieved.
Jay Gould was considered a successful businessman because he grew up in poverty and then became a multi-millionaire (a billionaire in today’s dollars). His son George Jay Gould isn’t considered a successful businessman because all he did was inherit his dad’s company and didn’t meaningfully increase its value.
Fred Trump was a successful businessman because he made the fortune that Donald Trump squandered.
And how much money has Trump made pillaging America? Pretty sure he’s got most of those folks beat. Heck, Jared Kushner got like $2billion from the Saudis to play around with, and that was just one of the kickbacks to Trump’s family orbit. Pretty successful at enriching themselves – Gould become a billionaire, Trump’s become a multi-billionaire and made his family connections all billionaires in their own right aswell.
Trumps made himself worth more than he was previously worth. He’s also made his family and friends worth more than they were previously worth. So he fits your definition of being a successful businessman.
That’s post-election.
The timeline is:
At no point was he a successful businessman.