What’s in a Sign?

October 24, 2024

Previous | Next

As I drove into my polling place to perform my civic duty yesterday, I noticed an interesting series of campaign signs. Each sign made one of these comparisons:

  • Trump: Lower taxes/ Kamala: Higher taxes
  • Trump: Low prices/ Kamala: High prices
  • Trump: Secure borders/ Kamala: Open borders
  • Trump: Safety/ Kamala: Crime

I was struck by how succinctly these signs declared the superiority of candidate Trump over candidate Harris, but also how misleadingly they stated the issues.

Call me old-fashioned, but I like a sign that simply announces the name of the candidate one supports, and maybe a brief slogan to capture the spirit of a campaign: Something like “Reagan—Morning Again in America,” or “Obama—Change We Can Believe In.” Trying to compare two candidates with pithy one-liners is a challenging task, even if a campaign is trying to be fair. For a campaign with no concern for facts, it is a public disservice, a kind of democracy malpractice.

Why, by the way, is Donald Trump “Trump,” while Kamala Harris is “Kamala”? The only reason I know for Trump to call his opponent by her first name and deliberately mispronounce it when he says it, is to make Harris sound vaguely foreign, as if her ancestry was somehow disqualifying. Trump tried to do the same thing to Barack Obama by emphasizing his middle name—Hussein—and promoting the “birther” conspiracy that he was born in a foreign country. One more way of dividing the country into us and them.

For each of the above comparisons, a lot of facts come to mind that don’t fit neatly on a campaign sign. Here are a few of them.

“Trump: Lower taxes/ Kamala: Higher taxes”?

To the extent that this is true at all, it is true mainly for corporate taxes. Trump’s 2017 tax cut lowered the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%. He would lower it further, to 15%, for companies that make their products in the United States. Harris would increase the corporate rate to 28%, but give some tax breaks to small businesses.

Regarding individual taxes, Harris wants to shift the tax burden toward the rich, by raising taxes only on incomes over $400,000 a year. She would reduce taxes on others by increasing the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit. Trump wants to make permanent the 2017 tax cuts whose benefits went primarily to the rich. If he were to adopt the flatter tax rates recommended by Project 2025, the Republican blueprint for a new administration, the tax burden would be shifted even further from the rich to the non-rich. (See my analysis here.)

Trump’s tariff proposal is a tax on imports, in effect a tax on corporations with global supply chains. Economists expect that it would raise costs by several thousand dollars for the average household when those costs are passed along to consumers.

Taken together, Trump’s tax proposals would result in another massive loss of revenue for the federal government and add trillions to the national debt. Economists say that Harris’s proposals would have a much smaller impact, but they would also give people more in tax reductions than they take back in tax increases. To summarize her plan as “higher taxes” is incorrect.

“Trump: Low prices/ Kamala: High prices”?

This makes sense only if we blame Harris for the spike in inflation that occurred shortly after Biden and Harris took office. The factors contributing to that spike were already developing, however. Both the Trump and Biden administrations stimulated economic demand to combat the Covid recession. Meanwhile, Covid was disrupting supply chains, and the war in Ukraine was interrupting the supply of oil. Higher demand + Lower supply = Inflation. Although businesses rarely lower prices once they have raised them, the overall rate of inflation has now dropped back to a more normal level.

The only proposal I have heard from Trump to control inflation is to increase the supply of energy, something the country is already doing. He only seems to care about more oil drilling, not the cleaner forms of energy Biden and Harris have been promoting. Trump’s tariff proposal would raise prices, as noted above.

Harris has proposals to increase the supply of housing and combat price gauging in the food industry. She also proposes to ease costs for first-time home buyers with a tax credit.

“Trump: Secure borders/ Kamala: Open borders”?

Trump’s plan for securing our borders is to close them to asylum seekers, U.S. and international law notwithstanding. He would also place millions of migrants already here in detention camps and then deport them. As far as I know, he makes no exception for those here legally, pending a hearing on their asylum cases.

Trump helped kill the bipartisan immigration reform law that Congress was close to passing earlier this year. It contained some tough provisions on border security: “close loopholes in the asylum process, give the president greater authority to shut down the border and limit parole of migrants” (The Washington Post). At that point, it was Trump who seemed to want the border kept open so he could run on the issue this year. Although President Biden would have preferred a legislated solution, he reduced border entries by executive action when the reform bill failed.

Contrary to the campaign sign, Harris does not support open borders. Like most Americans, she does support some path to citizenship for selected migrants. She also says she would sign the bipartisan reform bill that Trump killed.

“Trump: Safety/ Kamala: Crime”?

Both candidates supported—and Trump signed–the First Step Act, a federal criminal justice reform bill generally described as shifting the emphasis from punishment to rehabilitation.

Trump’s main proposal to reduce crime is to deport immigrants, whom he falsely accuses of committing more crimes than native-born Americans. (Actually, the immigrant crime rate is lower).

Given the rather obvious connection between this country’s exceptionally high rate of gun violence and its exceptionally permissive gun laws, any sensible discussion of crime should include some discussion of guns. Trump has sometimes expressed support for gun-safety measures such as universal background checks, but he refused to support them as president. Harris supports universal background checks and red flag laws.

Associating Harris with crime in general is rather silly. Crime rates have generally fallen during the Biden-Harris administration. Harris spent much of her career as a criminal prosecutor, while Donald Trump is a convicted felon. Harris has demonstrated far more regard for the law and the constitution than her opponent.

These kinds of campaign messages are traps for the unwary and uninformed, who make up a disturbing proportion of the electorate. I am sure that some Trump voters know exactly what to expect from him, whether they are corporate executives wanting lower taxes or struggling workers who see immigrants as standing in their way. But the many voters who expect him to create a stronger economy with lower inflation and less crime are likely to be disappointed. Most economists believe that Trump’s deportations and tariffs are more likely to lower GDP and bring on a recession.


Lucky Loser (part 3)

October 11, 2024

Previous | Next

As of 2003, according to Buettner and Craig, Donald Trump was personally wealthy, thanks mainly to having received his share of his father’s fortune. But his casino business was still losing money, “thanks to interest payments on the $1.7 billion in bonds and loans that Trump had already loaded on the company’s back.” With the business on the verge of bankruptcy, his image as a superior businessman could have taken a big hit. Instead, it got a powerful boost from an unexpected source.

(Non-)reality television

Mark Burnett, the creator of the “reality TV” series Survivor, wanted to do a show about young entrepreneurs competing in the urban jungle of corporate America. The premise of The Apprentice would be that each season’s participants would take on a business project and compete to win Trump’s favor and an apprenticeship with his company. Trump would get $50,000 per episode and half the show’s profits, just for playing himself. Of course, playing himself meant pretending to be a greater success than he really was. He introduced himself to the viewing audience by claiming, “I’m the largest real estate developer in New York…Now my company is bigger than it ever was. It’s stronger than it ever was.”

Trump’s offices in Trump Tower were too shabby for the image the producers wanted to create. He happily charged them over $440,000 a year to rent a vacant office, where they created a lavish, 1,520-square-foot boardroom.

In addition to the show’s advertising revenues, it made millions from “brand integration” deals. Corporations like Procter & Gamble, Estée Lauder, Hanes and Burger King paid to have their products featured in the series. Prospective apprentices would compete to develop marketing plans for a new toothpaste, cologne, or line of shirts. Half of those millions went to Trump.

Selling the name

The original version of The Apprentice aired from 2004 to 2010. (Trump also starred in another version, The Celebrity Apprentice, until he became a candidate for the presidency in 2015.) During those years, Trump also embarked on his “most profitable business.” Instead of building and managing properties himself, he licensed his name to be used by those who did.

In 2004, he licensed his name to a group planning to build a fifty-two-story apartment building in Tampa. They offered several million dollars for that privilege, to be paid to Trump whether or not the project was actually completed. Two years later, the developers discovered that the ground could not support the planned structure without expensive redesign. The project collapsed in a flurry of lawsuits the following year.

By 2006, Trump was licensing projects in numerous states and foreign countries. He was moving beyond real estate to brand a line of furniture, a travel agency and a mortgage brokerage. Buyers were often attracted because the Trump name suggested that he stood behind the project or product. “Trump typically lied or fuzzed the fact that he did not own the projects and was not the developer.” In the case of the Tampa building, he falsely assured buyers that he owned “a substantial stake” in the project. Buyers who paid a 20 percent nonrefundable deposit to reserve a unit lost their money when the project failed.

Trump made over $100 million from licensing deals over seven years, but forty of his licensed projects were never completed. “Trump played it all for the short term, risking the reputational damage that would wreck the value of his name to other businesses.”

Because Trump “took this easy money without performing any due diligence on the people paying him,” his name became associated with some shady enterprises. The American Communications Network was accused of being a pyramid scheme, since the incomes of its sales reps seemed to depend on recruiting other reps willing to pay an entrance fee. Trump got $8.8 million for his endorsements, including a video in which he assured the reps, “We do a lot of research on companies before we agree to do something like I am doing for you.” When the company got in trouble, he denied knowing much about its operations.

When a promoter who had never worked in education asked him to brand an educational program, Trump decide he wanted a major ownership share as well. Trump University started out as an online program, but soon transformed into a series of in-person real estate seminars. It did not issue degrees or meet state licensing requirements for a real university. Most of the instructors had experience in sales, but limited knowledge of the real estate business. Their main job seems to have been to talk students into paying for additional seminars, which many students found superficial and unhelpful to their career prospects. The promotional materials claimed that Trump had “handpicked” the instructors, but in fact he never met them. After about five years of operation, and after being sued by the State of New York and many students, Trump University shut down. Trump later settled those suits for $25 million.

More business failures

While he was raking in money from playing a businessman on The Apprentice and licensing his name to other businesses, Donald Trump’s own businesses continued to fail. After his casino company went through a series of bankruptcy proceedings, he resigned from its board of directors. At that time, “he notified the board, and then the Securities and Exchange Commission, that he had ‘determined that his partnership interests are worthless and lack potential to regain value’ and was ‘hereby abandoning’ his stake.”

Even here, he was lucky to be able to take advantage of tax legislation intended to help businesses recover from the Great Recession. “The recession recovery bill allowed him to use those losses to request a refund of every dime in federal income taxes he had paid on the rush of cash from The Apprentice and related licensing deals for 2005 through 2007—a total of $70.1 million.”

During this period, Trump was also attempting another building project of his own, a ninety-two-story tower in Chicago. He financed it with $770 million in bank loans and $89 million in cash. Once again, he underestimated costs and overestimated revenue. When he was unable to make his loan payments, he sued the banks in hopes of getting the loans canceled, making the dubious argument that the recent financial crisis qualified as a “natural disaster.” When the case was settled, Trump paid only $99 million of the $385 million he still owed. Strangely, a new division of Deutsche Bank lent him the $99 million to pay off the other division of the same bank that he had sued!

Since the 1990s, Trump had been investing in golf courses, despite the declining profitability of the sport. Now he acquired new courses in Florida, Scotland and Ireland. In most of these, he had trouble making enough money to offset his expenses.

In 2012, the Trump Organization signed a lease to renovate and manage the Old Post Office in Washington, DC. It reopened as the Trump International Hotel in 2016. When it proved to be unprofitable, it was sold to the government of Kuwait in 2022.

Buettner and Craig summarize:

The last two major developments of his career, his apartment and hotel tower in Chicago and the hotel in Washington, as well as his three most recent golf courses in the United Kingdom, had all been financial failures that required constant infusions of cash.

To meet his need for cash, Trump sold the property he had inherited from his father’s estate for $177.3 million. The authors call this “a massive watershed inheritance capping a lifetime of parental support.”

Saving Trump from himself

Donald Trump will go down in history as one of the country’s most fascinating figures. On the one hand, he was a poor business manager whose real estate enterprises usually lost money. On the other hand, he was a rich man who was hailed as a business genius and supported for President of the United States by almost half the country (not quite achieving a majority of the popular vote in 2016 or 2020). Lucky Loser describes the many forms of help he needed to pull all this off.

First, he had a father with a successful career in real estate. Fred Trump not only passed on to Donald property worth hundreds of millions of dollars, but allowed him to claim credit for more of the family’s wealth than he had created.

Donald also received hundreds of millions in business loans from bankers, and he continued to find lenders even after many of his projects had already failed.

Trump relied on business partners whose companies were more successful than his. He built two of his rare successes, the Grand Hyatt and Trump Tower, in partnership with Hyatt and Equitable, respectively. In one case, he benefited financially from decisions he had no part in. The Hong Kong company that took control of Trump’s troubled West Side Yards project eventually sold it to buy other properties, which were in turn sold. Although Trump tried to stop these sales, he was lucky not to succeed, since he ended up getting $100 million of the proceeds. “Despite Trump’s efforts, much of his losses on businesses he ran would be covered by a windfall from a business that was not subject to his judgment.”

Trump also had the good fortune to burst on the real-estate scene in the 1980s, when the country was experiencing a wave of enthusiasm for money-making.

The adult Donald Trump and the Forbes list [of the 400 wealthiest Americans] arrived holding hands at the dawn of a broad cultural shift in America. The syndicated television show Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous would soon debut, ushering in an era of “wealth porn,” a voyeuristic celebration of money and its trappings. he embraced the guiding ethos of the moment: great wealth, or at least the appearance of great wealth, means supremacy in all things.

Then came The Apprentice, the product of an entertainment industry willing to celebrate that ethos. It turned Donald Trump into a shining symbol of the marriage of money and merit. He became the embodiment of the philosophy that “greed is good.”

Here’s the part that may sting most in a country that sees itself as history’s greatest meritocracy: Good things happened to Donald Trump. He did not earn most of those good things. He was born. He was discovered by a revolutionary television producer. And he was pushed into an investment against his will. And from those three bits of good luck came the equivalent today of more than $1.5 billion. That sort of tailwind could paper over a litany of failure and still fund a lavish life.

And even that is not all. The authors suggest that the “final lucky stroke of Trump’s very lucky life” was the rise of right-wing media.

During his lifetime, a new media ecosystem had come into existence, one eager to explain away evidence of any Republican president’s wrongs and endlessly magnify the thinnest assertion of any Democrat’s missteps. That ecosystem evolved from talk radio in the 1980s and gained dominance on cable television in the 1990s with the launch of Fox News…In this virtual world, no criticism or finding of fault against Trump could be based on merit. It was all part of an orchestrated attack by bad actors.

Buettner and Craig make a good case that Trump is a “lucky loser” indeed. But I still want to make a distinction: Luck is something that happens to a person; lying is something that is done by a person. Trump has been lucky to have right-wing media to propagate his lies. But he actively promotes the lies himself, such as the lie that he won the 2020 election, or that immigrants commit crimes at a higher rate than people born in the United States. It is a symbiotic relationship. The main point of it, I think, is to get working-class people to vote Republican, so that corporations and the wealthy can have more tax cuts, while lesser folk blame their problems on someone else.


Lucky Loser (part 2)

October 5, 2024

Previous | Next

By the early 1980s, Donald Trump had completed two successful building projects, the Grand Hyatt that opened in 1980, and the Trump Tower that opened in 1983. His reach far exceeded his grasp, however, since he had talked up so many other projects that he was unable to complete or even begin. Buettner and Craig summarize his situation:

Thanks to his father’s wealth and reputation, newspapers conferred an air of credibility on Donald’s every utterance. Those stories, and those that followed, began to establish an image of Donald Trump as a man of consequence and big ideas, and few took notice that most of his proposals went nowhere.

A frenzy of buying

Donald Trump’s image as a super builder made many banks willing to lend him big bucks for new projects. During the mid-1980s, he went on a buying spree with ample amounts of borrowed money. During this period, he:

  • partnered with Holiday Inns, Inc. to build his first Atlantic City casino, Harrah’s at Trump Plaza (soon renamed Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino; later he borrowed $250 million to acquire sole ownership)
  • bought a second casino across the street and renamed it Trump Castle
  • bought the New Jersey Generals football team in the new United States Football League
  • bought the West Side Yards, the largest undeveloped piece of land in Manhattan; (he had previously acquired an option to buy it from the bankrupt Penn Central, but allowed it to expire; now he bought it from its current owner)
  • bought the Mar-a-Lago beach property in Palm Beach, Florida
  • partnered with Lee Iacocca to buy an unfinished condominium project across Lake Worth from Mar-a-Lago; he renamed it Trump Plaza of the Palm Beaches
  • bought the Hotel St. Moritz in New York City from Harry Helmsley
  • bought the New York Foundling Hospital from the Archdiocese of New York, intending to replace it with an apartment building

By 1986, Trump was rich in assets but deep in debt.

He had excelled at convincing lenders to fund a remarkable number of large acquisitions without requiring him to put in any of his own money…[H]e had taken on, in less than four years, more than $1 billion in debt, much of it at high interest rates and personally guaranteed by him.

Still the acquisitions continued. In 1987 and 1988, he:

  • borrowed $220 million to build condominiums for Trump Palace, on the site of the Foundling Hospital
  • bought a controlling interest in the Taj Mahal casino from Resorts International, and borrowed $675 million to complete its construction
  • bought the Plaza Hotel in New York City
  • bought the Boston-New York-Washington shuttle service from Eastern Airlines

The result was $1.7 billion in additional debt. But according to the authors, “He had performed little due diligence on the profit potential of anything he bought.” Usually uninterested in detailed cost-benefit analysis, Trump tended to underestimate development costs and/or overestimate revenue, winding up with a portfolio of assets with operating losses.

Small gains and big losses

As the owner of a team in a struggling summer football league, Donald was noted for overspending and combative litigation. He convinced other owners to pin their hopes on competing with the NFL to play and televise games during the fall season. He had his lawyer, the notorious and soon-to-be disbarred Roy Cohn, sue the NFL for maintaining a monopoly. The jury did find a monopoly, but no specific anti-competitive practices to justify more than one dollar in damages. The new league’s costs exceeded its revenues, and it went out of business.

Trump’s plans for the West Side Yards stalled. He could not find a major tenant to anchor the complex, and he fought with the city over rezoning and tax abatement.

In Atlantic City, the revenue from his casinos failed to cover his expenses, considering his very large loan payments. His only profitable businesses remained his first two projects, the Grand Hyatt and Trump Tower.

Trump did make some money playing the stock market, buying stocks with borrowed money and selling them at a profit. The word that he was buying a stock would help push its price up, especially because other buyers thought he might be interested in taking over the company. Sometimes the executives of a company would buy back his stock at a higher price just to avoid a possible takeover. Some of Trump’s stock dealing got him in trouble with federal regulators, but he made more on the deals than he paid in fines.

In 1987, Trump published The Art of the Deal, boasting of his accomplishments and his business savvy. His “co-author,” Tony Schwartz, who did the actual writing, delivered a flattering portrait of his subject, but he noted at the time that a more truthful description would reveal him to be “just hateful or, worse yet, a one-dimensional blowhard.” Schwartz has been one of Trump’s severest critics ever since.

Trump’s tax return for that same year is revealing:

Trump’s core businesses reported a negative income of $45.4 million…He reported $25.4 million in short-term capital gains, mostly, if not entirely, from the stocks he sold after letting investors believe he might take over the company.

A couple of points about tax law are helpful here. Trump organized his businesses as legal partnerships, which meant that the profits or losses showed up on his personal tax return. Even successful real estate investments sometimes produce losses for tax purposes, at least in the short run. That’s because owners can depreciate a property, spreading its cost over many years. Reported costs easily exceed revenues in the early years, before potential income is fully realized. But Trump’s losses went far beyond that. His revenues remained below costs year after year, making entire projects unprofitable.

The truth was that Trump was hemorrhaging cash, largely from massive interest payments. But it was all other people’s cash. His entire operation, and his lifestyle, was a float. He was living, and creating a phony image, on borrowed money.

Some observers began to see that Trump’s business success was highly overrated. Financial analyst Marvin Roffman publicly stated his view that the revenue from the Taj Mahal casino could not possibly make up for its debt payments. Trump’s response was to get Roffman fired from the brokerage firm he worked for by threatening a lawsuit against the firm. (Roffman later sued for defamation, and Trump settled with him.)

In 1989, the expenses of Trump’s businesses exceeded revenue by $36.1 million. Soon he was trying to stop the negative cash flow by withholding millions from contractors and cutting staffing at the casinos. In June of 1990, he failed to make $73 million in debt payments. At that point, the bankers stepped in. A front-page story in the Wall Street Journal was headlined, “Shaky Empire: Trump’s Bankers Join to Seek Restructuring of Developer’s Assets.” The bankers forced him to sell losing properties and reduce his spending. His “allowance” for personal expenses would be a mere $450,000 a month ($5.4 million a year). This was less than he was accustomed to spending on Mar-a-Lago alone, but it was generous enough to maintain his popular image as a financial success.

A struggle for solvency

In the 1990s, Donald Trump had to sell one property after another to cut his losses and pay off his creditors. He sold the Plaza Hotel for $100 million less than he had borrowed to buy it. He turned over the unsold units in the failing Trump Palace to the bank. He gave up control of the West Side Yards to a Hong Kong developer, leaving his future returns to the discretion of the new owners. (This deal would provide an unexpected windfall many years later.) He even had to sell what had been his first success, the Grand Hyatt hotel. He did manage to hold on to the places where he resided, Trump Tower and Mar-a-Lago. He converted Mar-a-Lago to a private club, generating income from expensive memberships.

An interesting question is how Donald managed to avoid personal bankruptcy while so many of his businesses incurred operating and capital losses. Part of the answer is that he could cover operating losses with borrowed money, as long as banks would keep making new loans. And by putting very little of his own money into his projects, he could limit the personal damage from capital losses. His businesses could go bankrupt while he remained personally solvent.

In 1995, Trump turned his casino operation into his first public company, Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts. He made millions on the sale of public shares. He saddled the new company with debts on borrowed money that either had been used or would be used to pay off his previous loans. That made the public company a losing business with a falling stock price, but those losses were borne by the shareholders. (The company would file for bankruptcy three times beginning in 2004. All its properties would eventually be closed and sold.)

By 1996, Trump:

…had finally cleared the last of the loans from banks that had threatened to force him into personal bankruptcy. He had in the prior decade recorded more than $1.1 billion in business losses on his tax returns, a failure of historical proportions.

That raises another question. Did Donald Trump ever invest $1.1 billion of his own money? And if not, how did he claim that much in losses? In theory, if he sold a building for less than he borrowed to buy it, that was his loss. At least, it would be if he fully repaid the loan out of personal funds. But if the bank accepted the sale proceeds in lieu of full repayment, that would shift some of his loss to the bank. (For tax purposes, his loss would be offset by a form of taxable income known as cancellation of debt income.) However, by using an unusual—and possibly illegal—tax maneuver, Trump apparently got away with claiming excess losses for himself. Those losses enabled him to pay zero taxes for many years.

Trump was still making new acquisitions, but with fewer lenders willing to lend, he had to reduce the scale of his projects. When he partnered with the South Korean conglomerate Daewoo to build Trump World Tower across the street from the UN, he invested much less than his partner and had to settle for a smaller share of the profits. He also started investing in golf courses, which cost a lot less than building hotels and casinos. But he continued to claim, “I’m the biggest in real estate in New York, and I’m the biggest in the gaming industry.”

Generational transfers

Another big factor in Trump’s financial survival was the large amounts he received from his father’s estate. Ever since they were children, Fred Trump had been giving Donald and his siblings annual tax-free gifts. At first, he limited them to several thousand dollars a year per child, since larger gifts would be recorded and subjected to estate taxes when his estate was settled.

When Donald got into financial trouble in the 1990s, Fred transferred larger amounts to his children through a fraudulent scheme that evaded gift and estate taxes. The family created companies owned by the children, whose sole purpose was to purchase millions of dollars of goods and materials for Fred’s business and sell them to him at a substantial markup. The children made a profit, but it was subject to income tax instead of the higher estate tax. Donald did not pay income taxes either, as long as his income was offset by his overstated capital losses.

Fred Trump retained ownership of his own properties until 1995, when his children got him to give his son Robert power of attorney. “Donald and his siblings could begin taking ownership of their father’s massive cash machine, and Fred could do nothing to stop them.” They immediately starting transferring his properties to a grantor retained annuity trust (GRAT). This type of trust allows assets to pass to heirs without estate taxes, as long as the heirs are buying the assets at fair market value. Buettner and Craig reckon that the assets were appraised for only about 5% of their market value, resulting in a large windfall with minimal taxes. When the transfers were completed a couple years later, “Donald Trump’s net worth instantly increased by tens of millions of dollars,” and his “share of profits from his father’s company averaged about $6 million a year going forward.

Thanks to his father, he continued to be a rich man despite his own business failures. And more good luck was on the way.

Continued


Lucky Loser

October 1, 2024

Previous | Next

Russ Buettner and Susanne Craig. Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father’s Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success. New York: Penguin, 2024.

This is the most comprehensive and thoroughly documented account of Donald Trump’s financial history, written by two New York Times journalists. The general storyline is that Trump managed to fail as a real estate developer despite the help of his father Fred, a successful New York builder with a large portfolio of properties. But he managed to succeed in creating a public image as a great builder, with the help of a “reality television” show, a large inheritance, and other strokes of good fortune. For a time that image enabled him to make money just by licensing his name, but he eventually cheapened it by attaching it to enterprises of dubious value. The authors find “no evidence that in fifty years of labor Donald Trump added to his lucky fortunes.” They conclude that he would have done better by taking the money he received from his father and investing it in the stock market instead of in his own projects.

Although I think “lucky loser” is a fair description, it does not cover everything the book reveals about its subject. The adjective “crooked” belongs in there too, because of the part that Trump’s dishonesty has played in his financial fortunes. The authors cite the “dubious maneuver” of giving properties “a low value when dealing with tax authorities and a high value when trying to extract money from banks and buyers.” Another bad habit has been fabricating or exaggerating his accomplishments, while denying and covering up his failings. Of course, “crooked” is a word that Trump likes to use for his adversaries, but many observers have suggested that he projects some of his own weaknesses and insecurities when he chooses his epithets.

Fred Trump

The natural starting point for describing Donald Trump’s good fortune is to say that he had a wealthy businessman for a father. Fred Trump was already making money as a builder when the National Housing Act of 1934 helped turn the Great Depression into a “Golden Age for home builders.” The new FHA allowed thirty-year mortgage loans covering 80% of a home’s value, guaranteed by the government. During World War II, Title VI, Section 608 of the Act encouraged construction of apartments near factories and military bases by offering low-interest loans covering 90% of construction costs. Fred took full advantage of these opportunities, notably by building the largest private housing development in Brooklyn, Shore Haven.

By the 1950s, however, the public was learning how developers had been scamming the system. They were making quick profits by taking out loans that exceeded the cost of production and pocketing the difference. Then if renters couldn’t or wouldn’t pay the high rents needed to cover the large loan payments, the developers often defaulted on their loans, to the detriment of the tenants and taxpayers. Although Fred Trump took his own Shore Haven into default, he was able to expand his real estate empire by buying properties at auction when other builders defaulted. Despite his reliance on government-backed loans and weak regulation, Fred liked to portray himself as a self-made man. He claimed in a full-page newspaper ad,  “Shore-Haven is a new monument to the American spirit of free enterprise. The project was conceived, planned, executed by Fred C. Trump, acting as a free and rugged individualist to meet the basic need for human shelter.”

The authors estimate that over the years, Donald Trump would receive “the equivalent of more than $400 million from his father” in gifts, loans—often not repaid—and bequests. To this day, Trump denies receiving more than a small fraction of that amount.

Education and exaggeration

The book describes the young Donald as a “dominant personality,” but with “a reputation for misbehaving.” His father sent him to New York Military Academy at age 13 in the hope of teaching him more discipline. His tendency to embellish his own accomplishments seems to have developed early on. To pose for his yearbook photo, he borrowed the dress jacket from another student who had earned more medals than he had. (As a military school graduate myself, I find that disgustingly dishonorable.) Later he would claim that he was at the “top of the military heap” at the academy, but five pages of awards in the commencement program do not include his name. His students did dub him the class “Ladies Man”; that much seemed to be true.

Trump went on to study business at Fordham University, where he is remembered for cutting class on nice days to play golf. From there he transferred to the Wharton School of Finance and Commerce at the University of Pennsylvania. He would later claim to have graduated at the head of his class, but the commencement program didn’t list him as even making the dean’s list.

What he did do was graduate in the late 1960s, “just as his father was prepared to begin passing along a business that would be worth a billion dollars.” The authors call this “the luckiest stroke of a life filled with big breaks.” His father favored Donald over his older brother Freddy, who disappointed his father by wanting to be an airline pilot and developing a drinking problem.

The Commodore/Grand Hyatt Hotel

The Commodore was a run-down hotel that Donald Trump acquired from the bankrupt Penn Central railroad. He proposed to renovate it, relying on his father’s close ties to New York Mayor Abraham Beame to help him get a big break on city taxes. The Wall Street Journal called this “the tax deal of the century.” The tax break attracted a partner, the Pritzker family, who owned the Hyatt Hotels.

Donald brought to the Commodore renovation what he usually would bring to his projects, a grandiose plan and an underestimate of costs. He then “cut costs in ways that created problems later.”  For example, “Rather than installing the typical metal ductwork to draw air from the guests’ bathrooms up to the roof, Trump had shafts built of drywall, which leaked and made balancing the system impossible.” In the end, the renovation cost twice as much as he estimated.

The authors describe Donald’s approach to development this way:

With no real estate or financial staff at his disposal, Donald’s assessment of a potential opportunity started and stopped at the end of his nose. There would be no deliberative planning and very little in the way of an analysis of risks or potential return on investment. Every entrepreneur relies at some level on instinct, typically after running the numbers. Donald Trump went straight to instinct. The only brakes on this endless energy train would be whether he could leverage his father’s wealth to borrow tens of millions of dollars.

In this case, Donald was saved by two things. He could borrow from his father to pay excess costs. And the economic recovery in downtown New York brought back visitors and raised hotel occupancy and rates. The new Commodore—now the Grand Hyatt—did well.

Trump Tower

The first project that Donald Trump built from the ground up was Trump Tower, on the site of the old Bonwit Teller Building. He wanted a tax abatement for this project too, but that proved more difficult. The law he wanted to apply had been written to encourage apartment construction and keep residents in the city. But according to new guidelines, the tax break only applied to replacements for “functionally obsolete” buildings, and city officials ruled that Bonwit Teller did not qualify. Trump sued, eventually winning his case on the grounds that the guidelines in question had not actually been written into the law.

Once again, the project had extravagant designs, cost overruns, and attempts at cost-cutting. Residents of expensive apartments were surprised to find “cheap cabinets, Formica countertops, fake marble, parquet floor tiles, and low-end kitchen appliances.” But once again, favorable market conditions helped, and the project became one of Trump’s few profitable construction projects.

Building an image

Donald Trump’s grandiose proposals, lavish lifestyle and zealous pursuit of publicity were already giving him a reputation far beyond his actual accomplishments. Even before construction had started on any of his buildings, a New York Times reporter described him this way:

He is tall, lean and blond, with dazzling white teeth, and he looks ever so much like Robert Redford…He dates slinky fashion models, belongs to the most elegant clubs and, at only 30 years of age, estimates that he is worth “more than $200 million.”

In addition to the plan for the Commodore, the article cited two other projects, a Manhattan convention center and a huge complex in the West Side Yards of the bankrupt Penn Central, imagined to include 14,500 apartments and the tallest building in the world. Trump would never be able to build either of those projects. And as for the $200 million, that was Fred’s worth, not Donald’s. In 1982, the Forbes list of the 400 wealthiest Americans included Donald by saying that he shared the family fortune with his father. Actually, Donald’s ownership of real estate acquired by his father was limited to a few million dollars in apartments that his father had given him.  Four years later, Forbes dropped Fred from the listings and mistakenly attributed full control to Donald. CBS’s 60 Minutes compounded the error by declaring Donald a billionaire. Then Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous doubled that by estimating his wealth at two billion.

By this time, Donald Trump had those two successful projects, the Grand Hyatt and Trump Tower. But his fame already far exceeded his actual accomplishments, and that would become even truer as his losing projects began to outnumber his winning ones.

Continued


Trump’s Dilemma: Debate or Just Deceive?

September 12, 2024

Previous | Next

It matters who won or lost this week’s presidential debate, but it also matters how they won or lost. In their post-debate analysis, many commentators focused on issues of style or tactics. Kamala Harris looked more presidential, they say, and she managed to goad Donald Trump into making some silly assertions, like claiming that “people don’t go to her rallies; there’s no reason to go. And the people who do go she’s busing them in and paying them to be there.”

What about substance? Who was more effective in persuading voters to support their policy proposals? Here Trump has a big handicap, since he has trouble debating ideas on their merits. Doing so effectively requires some command of the facts. But Trump does not so much assimilate facts as try to ignore them. He can get away with this when he is ranting within his MAGA bubble in campaign rallies or on right-wing media. In a debate setting, he can only hope that his opponent—and the moderators—are either too timid or too unprepared to call out his distortions of reality. Vice President Harris was neither.

Here are a few examples of the deceptions Trump presented in lieu of reasoned, fact-based arguments. Here I draw on the excellent fact-checking provided by the Washington Post.

On the economy, both candidates expressed concern about high prices, but only Harris had specific policy proposals to control consumer costs, such as the high cost of housing. Trump preferred to devote his time to blowing the problem out of proportion and placing the blame for it entirely on his opponent. He claimed that the recent inflation is “probably the worst in our nation’s history,” that his administration had “the greatest economy” of all time, and that the Biden-Harris administration “destroyed the economy.” In fact, inflation was higher in 1946, 1979 and 1980; the Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton administrations had stronger economies than his; and the Biden-Harris economy is also doing well by most economic measures. The rate of growth and job creation has been high, unemployment has been low, and the rate of inflation has come back down.

Trump also refused to acknowledge that his own tariff proposal would increase costs for consumers. He claimed, contrary to what economics teaches, that his tariff will be paid for by the countries that export goods to the United States. In fact, tariffs are taxes on importers, who usually pass them on to consumers. Cost estimates vary, but generally indicate that the tariffs will cost the average family several thousand dollars a year. A tariff is also a regressive tax, hitting low-income households the hardest.

On immigration, Trump claimed that 21 million immigrants have entered the country in the past four years, while the true number is closer to 5 million. He said that “they’re at the highest level of criminality,” when immigrants actually have a lower rate of crime than the U.S.-born population. Undocumented immigrants have an especially low rate, because they know that if they are arrested they can be deported. Trump described “millions of people pouring into our country from prisons and jails, from mental institutions and insane asylums,” so many that “crime is down all over the world except here.” These are total fabrications, even before we get to the immigrant cat eaters of Springfield. He also asserted, without evidence, that Democrats are deliberately letting undocumented immigrants into the country and then trying to get them to vote illegally. That’s one of the assertions he makes to support the Big Lie that the 2020 election was stolen. He repeated such claims over and over instead of debating the bipartisan immigration bill that Biden and Harris supported but he effectively killed.

On abortion, Trump tried to defend his successful effort to get the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. Here he conveniently manufactured a consensus that doesnot exist: “Every legal scholar, every Democrat, every Republican, liberal, conservative, they all wanted this issue to be brought back to the states where the people could vote.” He also falsely accused Democrats of supporting late-term abortion and even execution of newborns. Harris supports the Roe standard, which calls for unrestricted abortion rights only during the first trimester, when about 90% of abortions occur. Trump refused to say whether he would sign or veto a federal ban on abortion.

In response to a question on climate change, Trump had no proposals to do anything about it. Instead, he went on the attack, saying, “If she won the election, the day after that election, they’ll go back to destroying our country, and oil will be dead, fossil fuel will be dead.” In fact, Biden and Harris promote both fossil fuels and cleaner energy in the short term, and production of both have increased under their administration.

On the war in Ukraine, Trump claimed that he could end it quickly, but refused to say whether he wanted Ukraine to win. He implied that the U.S. is already spending too much on the war, by stating that we have provided more aid to Ukraine than European countries have. That’s not true either.

Some may dismiss these falsehoods by claiming that all politicians lie, and that both sides are equally guilty. However, factchecking has turned up only a few problems with Harris’s debate positions. She did try to downplay her former opposition to fracking. She did take a couple of Trump’s quotations out of context, as when she said, “It is well known that he said of Putin that he can do whatever the hell he wants and go into Ukraine.” Trump was not talking specifically about Ukraine, but about a warning to a NATO country that we would not defend them if they did not increase their financial contribution to NATO.

Harris’s own positions and policy proposals deserve scrutiny and debate. But fruitful debate becomes impossible when the other candidate would rather rage against imaginary demons than engage with the real issues. Trump’s failure to propose an alternative to Obamacare after vilifying it for nine years shows that he prefers outrage to constructive governing.

Stretching the truth a little within a debate is one thing. Substituting outlandish claims for fact-based debate is something else. That defeats the whole purpose of debate, which is to inform the public of the candidates’ proposals and their arguments for them. Donald Trump displays such a flagrant disregard for truth that one must wonder if he really believes what he is saying. If he does, he is deluded. If he does not, then he is habitually dishonest. Neither trait is easy to change, so an improved performance by Trump in some future debate seems unlikely. Either should be disqualifying for the presidency.