What is the track record of rich business man who became leaders

File: 6DC573BA-DF47-49B6-8D1A-83916A339625-263-0000005CD0F56AFB_tmp.jpg (9KB, 107x160px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 107x160px

*stuffs you a 20*
i got some hot dames outside kid, lets see if you's a real bigtine cat foist

>>1974707
Some would say the founding fathers did a pretty decent job

File: berlusconi[1].jpg (80KB, 930x1227px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 930x1227px

>>1974707
They're generally very mediocre.
On one hand they usually manage to handle their people well, and they can avoid the divided base that plagues lot of politicians.
On the other hand they're usually total amateurs at dealing with the opposition and statecraft, so they rarely do anything of real effect with their strong position.
Also they tend to be in a position of conflicting interests, both at a personal level and through business connections, so expect interested legislating.

File: putin-berlusconi-p_3385183k.jpg (159KB, 858x536px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 858x536px

>>1974720

>early industrial plantation owners are comparable to 21st century real estate and media billionaires

It's time to stop posting my non-critical thinking friend

>>1974890
>>1974773

Kek'd at Silvioshootingmind

Jackson is the best analog to Trump: wealthy, inexperienced, mistrusted populist.

Jackson selected a rather eclectic group for his cabinet, including many who had never run a government and weren't able to cope with the demands of diplomacy and politics, which seems to me a story that might be repeated over the next four years.

Jackson also got bogged down in gossip and petty politics, often spending valuable time with outside concerns (sex scandals). That too seems like it might become a trait of the rich outsider American president.

One of things that Jackson had was a fairly coherent governing philosophy. He knew what his government should do and he was fairly effective at carrying it out. The same could be said for Reagan, and Reagan was able to avoid many of Jackson's mistakes because he had a team of people around him and in his cabinet who had a unified vision. Whether Trump has that remains to be seen. Beyond a sense of using the Bully Pulpit in a rather blunt manner, his group so far doesn't seem to have an coherent vision of government. Even their anti-immigration stance, the main unifying cause, is messy and directed at different efforts (the Deportation group, the ethnonationialists, the anti-Islam group).

I think the coherence and sense of purpose that emanates from the top is much more important than experience or skills. The federal government and US business manages to keep rolling along regardless of who sits in the Oval Office. But for things to move in a new direction, it seems to require a coherent plan. So a president can put any senator or businessman in charge of a department and things will keep running. But to get something new out of it, its better to have an ideologue and it doesn't much matter their career or background.

>>1974939
He served in the military. Does that counts as experience? Also his wealth and Trump is very different, new money vs old

You just described every prime minister that has ever existed. They are all rich businessmen. Their only job as PM is to use the state to buy goods and services from their own and their cronies' businesses

>>1974939
Andrew Jackson
> was a major general
> Served in the house of reps
> Served in the senate
> Served as the military governor of florida for a short period of time
> he came from old money

What the fuck are you talking about? Why the fuck do you write about something so extensively when you dont know about it. Yes, Jackson was a populist, but thats where the comparisons with trump end. Stop trying to compare your shitty candidate to badass historical figures.

>>1974948

You might think Jackson's military background would have made him a better manager, the way Eisenhower's served him well.

But we've seen countless military presidents who couldn't get over the basics of running the day to day. Grant and Carter were both terrible delegators, Kennedy's inner offices were chaotic and ad hoc.

Add to that the fact that the Indian Wars didn't require the highest levels of organization. Not that the Creek and Seminoles were hacks or anything, but he was moving a small army through semi-rural areas, well in reach of supplies and support. He didn't have much oversight, wasn't hemmed in by politics or bureaucracy, and didn't have to ever really govern an area. He had a short stint in the swamps of Florida, and that was about it.

Compare that again with Eisenhower's career, as an aide-at-camp, as a stragetic planner, in North Africa, in Northern France, as the military governor of Germany and as Supreme Commander in Europe. The challenges Eisenhower faced had much more to do with controling a vast group of people than it did with raids on villages. Merely being in the military doesn't make someone into a capable politician, but the military can provide governing experience.

The wealth difference is the point I wanted to make. The fact that he was wealthy, or how he got that wealth, didn't matter much in the end. The ability to herd cats proved to be the difference, and Jackson was able to get all the cats going in his ideal direction. Whether Trump can do that, or whether there is a end goal, is the important question.

File: Jerry Brown.jpg (27KB, 318x336px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 318x336px

>>1974973

See:>>1975016

Jackson is the best comparison, not an exact comparison.

Also,

>your candidate
>mfw

>>1975016
Yea I guess since Carter and Kennedy were small officers and didnt get command a lot of people. Idk why Grant sucks though

>>1974939
Hoover is actually.
>>1974707
Hoover is the only "billionaire" to become president.

File: 3bfea0292c937926e66d120e8ff01ce9.jpg (50KB, 450x506px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 450x506px

>>1975808

Hoover had experience in the federal executive though and was thought to he highly qualified during his campaign. His knowledge and experience was in fact one of his main campaign points.

File: hoover1928card-1.jpg (55KB, 494x400px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 494x400px

>>1976283

So experienced, he was seen as the inevitable choice.

Besides his wealth and his belief is tariffs, he didn't have much in common with Trump, at least as a politician.