Hacker News Reader

Comment by ethanhunt_ | Hacker News Reader

It's cutting off your nose to spite your face. No one is better off by sabotaging our economy except those who want to further their political careers by saying "I told you so" at the end of his term. It's politicking of the worst kind and damages the democracy.

Good democracy:

- fierce competition in the election

- choose winner

- work together as much as possible to do what's best for the country

Replacing step 3 with "do as much as possible to obstruct the winner and hurt the country until we win again" is stupid. It slows us down and weakens the functioning of the democracy.

Nothing wrong with anyone saying "We are fully against policy X". There is something wrong with "We are fully against policy X, so we will harm unrelated things: Y and Z (the economy in this case)".

View on HN

"Work together as much as possible to do what's best for the country" -- this is a two-way street. Do you believe the Trump administration is sincerely trying to work with anyone?

He sits at the table with Musk etc to work with them.

Where's the policy evidence of that? Musk's involvement came to nothing, he resigned abruptly in response to yet another executive order that went against his values.

It seems more like Trump sits at the table with people to have his own photo taken. Which is not much of a surprise because that has been his entire career for the past 30 years.

No, he didn't. Hence this very article.

This reads pretty close to "a good democracy is one with no opposition". "Good" is maybe not the word you're looking for.

The last bullet I could've better stated as "work together as much as possible to do what both parties believe is best for the country". I'm not saying the opposition party should support all the policies of pres, but they should support the ones that they believe are good. It is good for the admin to have input from leaders of economy, and the dems believe that.

Since the Democrats generally do not believe that the purpose of these meetings is to provide the President with operating advice for the country or the economy, it is not incumbent on them to support the meetings. And so, they do not.

Saying you're 'fully against policy X' while cooperating with someone who is implementing policy X is a self-contradictory position. It seems as if you're assuming different policies to be totally independent of each other and that there is some objectively good direction for the the economy as a whole which is clear to all.

I'm curious, do you feel the same way about insurance companies that expressed dissatisfaction with the Affordable Care Act and stopped participating in the exchanges, or do you view that decision as purely business-motivated?

> Saying you're 'fully against policy X' while cooperating with someone who is implementing policy X is a self-contradictory position.

No it's not. The president has an enormous jurisdiction, and you can cooperate on some issues and abstain on others. And you can advise on all of them.

> there is some objectively good direction for the the economy as a whole which is clear to all

It is clear to all that the economy is best off if the titans of our economy give their thoughts to those making policy and decision. I'm not saying everyone has to help the pres do whatever he wants, but withholding advise from the president in the area of economy because you disagree with his stance on immigration is nothing but spite that harms the country.

It is clear to all that the economy is best off if the titans of our economy give their thoughts to those making policy and decision.

Count me out of this, please. If there's evidence of a pattern of bad decisions that are deleterious to the economy as a whole - something each person has to decide for themselves, obviously - then I think it's better not to assist with that process. Otherwise you risk enabling bad outcomes.

This is absolutely not "clear to all". You're always out on a treacherous rhetorical ledge when you try to speak for "all" in a contentious discussion, but here you've run right off the edge, Wile-E Coyote-style.

A dichotomy:

- executive power should be wielded (WITH | WITHOUT) input from leaders of the economy

I'm not arguing that we should elect Trump. It's done. Now that he wields exec power, you think that "WITHOUT" is the better choice above? Why?

> A syllogism:

> - executive power should be wielded (WITH | WITHOUT) input from leaders of the economy

That's not anything remotely like a syllogism; it's just a dichotomy.

A syllogism is a structured argument consisting of a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion that follows from the two premises.

As I've written elsewhere here, I think we're generally better off with a government that does not arrange endorsements from corporate figureheads.

That's an irrelevant question, because Trump has demonstrated no interest in input from leaders of the economy.

A more relevant question is whether it's worth it for leaders of the industry to publicly pretend to give input to a person who they know will ignore it.

> It is clear to all that the economy is best off if the titans of our economy give their thoughts to those making policy and decision.

I don't think that's clear to all, but, in any case, the “titans of our economy” or going to do that whether or not they participate in formal executive commissions or not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com