Scott Adams's Blog, page 277

My Tissue Management System

My tissue management system might seem excessive to you, but allow me to explain.

When you need a tissue, timing can be critical. Unfortunately, the tissue industry does not attract the finest industrial designers in the land. There is no Jony Ive in the snot-removal business. I don’t mean to be unkind, but tissue box designers are probably not the same people who designed the Tesla. That’s all I’m saying.

And it shows. Often I attempt to grab one tissue and six come out in a clump. Sometimes I have to excavate inside the box, clawing at the wadded hump of tissues with my fingernails like some crazed badger until they release their bounty. Sometimes I need multiple tissues and I am disappointed that there is only one left. Why didn’t I buy tissues when I was just at the store??!!!

Sometimes a tissue sticks in the box’s opening and I accidentally lift the entire box off the counter. Once airborne, gravity separates the box from the tissue and before you know it the room is a frenzy of cardboard, tissues, and bodily fluids. Sometimes cursing is involved. That’s my experience anyway.

You can fool me once. And you can fool me several times a day for several decades. But sooner or later I will put a row of tissue boxes together and solve this problem for good.

Why so many?

Well, for starters, it serves as a monument to my ingenuity. There’s that. And it gives me great calm to know this one area of my life is totally under control. But the exact number of boxes is based on this calculation:

- One box is often out of tissues.

- One box often has tissues curled up in a tight ball, unwilling to be part of the job.

- One box often has a tissue dispenser jam and can’t be safely operated with your one available hand. (Say you have a beverage in the other.)

- One box is usually a duplicate problem to one of the above mentioned.

And that leaves the fifth box as a probable source of tissues. There’s a sixth box in a decorative container at the end of the row, but that’s just for looks. Unless I need it.

—

Sometimes I read books. Other times I write them.

Voluntary Restricted Democracy

Today I defend my view that men should voluntarily abstain from the political conversation about abortion. Then I’ll extend the same thinking to an unrelated topic – immigration.

My argument for taking men out of the abortion debate is that we add nothing in terms of extra intelligence while our participation creates gender animosity.

Anticipating your objections to this idea, let me spell out the obvious.

1. But of course men should have the LEGAL right to vote on all topics.

2. But of course some fetuses are male in potential.

3. But of course the question of child support should be a separate discussion, and one that men vote on.

4. But of course men could jump back into the abortion debate if for some inexplicable reason it someday mattered.

If your first reaction to my plan is that women, collectively, would reach the “wrong” decision about abortion rights, you are officially sexist. Women have this topic covered. I have full confidence. 

Under my proposal, men retain all legal rights for voting, gender animosity is reduced, and women reach well-informed decisions on the topic, for the benefit of all.

Let’s call this system – in which certain citizens abstain from certain topics – a voluntary restricted democracy. I can imagine extending this concept to other areas. For example, if a pollster calls to ask your opinion on economic policy, and you happen to know nothing about economics, perhaps you should abstain. That should be a choice on all political poll questions. It is very different from having no opinion.

Now consider United States immigration policy and the question of illegals already in the country. I find myself wondering what legal immigrants think we should do about illegals? I have a feeling I would defer to their judgment.

One of the magical powers of the United States is that once we absorb a person, we really, really absorb them. And my observation of recently naturalized citizens is that they are as American as you can get – in the purest possible sense – and I would trust their judgment on this topic. I also trust that when a person goes through the trouble of becoming a legal citizen they want it to mean something.

Immigration policy always has hanging over it a suspicion of racism. That can be removed by following the lead of our most recent citizens whom I assume would prefer living in a nation of laws. And my guess is that newly-minted citizens don’t want to live in a country in which their accents ignite automatic suspicions about their legal status. So I say let the newer citizens decide what we should do with illegals and I will follow their lead. That takes the suspicion of racism out of it.

Has there been a survey of new citizens on the topic of how to handle illegal immigration?

In summary, citizen participation is important to the political system. But in certain situations, abstaining is the better contribution to society.

—

If you think this idea is bad, you should see my books.

The Five-Screen Industry

Note: My Disqus social sign-in still doesn’t work but I got in direct. I saw the Disqus help in comments. Thank you. Not sure if what you changed fixed this. I hadn’t tried direct.

— begin post —

Sometimes governments promote technology standards that birth entire industries. The Internet is one example. GPS is another. And cellphones depend on the government managing who gets to use what bandwidth. 

I’d like to see the government create (or ask private industry to create) a five-screen standard for cameras and apps so we can have this sort of configuration for work, school, and play.

The standard would describe how drone cameras and other apps use all five screens. (For completeness, the standard would include 3-screen and 7-screen video surround options as well.)

Imagine a drone with a five-camera lense, snaking its way down a Parisian street. The remote viewer with a five-screen workstation gets an immersive (albeit 2D) experience. Seniors could explore the world from the comfort of their wheelchairs. Students could see history come to life along a five screen time line. Workers could see all of their apps and notes across five screens.

Those of you with multiple screens on your desk already know the joy of the extra workspace. But normally we are limited by our apps to two screens. I think a government push for a 5-screen standard would produce an avalanche of new product types. I could imagine these rooms as training pods for almost anything. Imagine watching a lecture while having four screens of supporting information that speak to every level of student. 

Someday I expect most school lessons to be CGI generated. The more screen real estate, the better.

And gaming. Holy cow.

The five screens can be any combination of home televisions, notepads, workstations, laptops, and even phones. And the standard should adjust to the number of screens detected in use.

You probably think that all the 3D technology in the pipeline makes this five-screen standard unnecessary. But if personal 3D is like movie 3D, many people will prefer the flat 2D experience. We probably need both. And keep in mind that the 4K televisions are probably what makes this standard take off. 

This is where you tell me such a standard already exists. And then you tell me governments do everything wrong. 

Is there anything good to this idea?

And more generally, I wonder if a president should be in the business of creating standards to create industries. My gut says we should do more of it, not less. What do you think? Are there examples where government has screwed up trying to do this sort of thing?

Update: VR will have a place, just as 3D movies have a place. But I think content creators will not be able to develop more than big hit games and apps with VR. 90% of the world (such as education) will be bound by the limits of the content creators. And I assume lots of people will get sick with VR, the way 3D gives headaches, but that’s just a guess.

—

Some of you might know that I wrote a book about the best way to pursue success (systems versus goals). People seem to like it.

—

The Upside of Ben Carson

I recently blogged that a Trump presidency would probably boost confidence in the economy and pay a big dividend in GDP over time. Economies move with psychology, and Trump is the best at business-related psychology in all its forms.

But what about Ben Carson, you ask? Does he bring an economic upside too?

Yes – a monstrous one. In fact, Carson brings with him the Godzilla of economic possibilities. And I apologize for not putting together the pieces until now. Carson is a once-in-a-generation economic opportunity for the United States. He could bring an asset to the White House that you might never see again. That asset is the fixer of climate change. It is the healthcare improvement of all time. It is an enormous boost to worker productivity, if not the largest ever. What could be such a big deal, you ask?

Ben Carson is a vegetarian doctor. 

Bam.

If the Cowspiracy people are right (or rightish), half of man-made climate change is caused by livestock. And that part can be reversed fairly quickly. The financial benefit would be enormous.

And obviously a plant-based diet would be a gigantic financial benefit to the healthcare and productivity of Americans.

Can a president change people’s diets? Not right away. But keep in mind that men wore hats until President Kennedy brought hatless style to the office. 

Carson’s religion is the reason for his vegetarian ways. But he also defends the diet on health grounds. That message from a doctor-president is a powerful package. A Surgeon General would not have the same influence.

We might never see another vegetarian doctor take a run for the White House. The economic potential of a health-oriented president is probably bigger than any issue in the debates. I don’t think diet will ever be a big topic in the election, but once in office, the role modeling (even if unintended) will begin.

I doubt Carson will make a big deal about his diet, even as president, because it springs from his faith, and it isn’t a sales point with conservatives. But this post is about the upside potential of a Carson presidency, and I doubt you will ever see a larger potential benefit.

Now consider the immigration issue. Put a Trump-looking guy in the presidency and you have an automatic problem. The legitimate question of border control starts looking like racism (even if it isn’t) simply because of the players involved. That problem goes away if your president is the second African-American in a row to hold the office. That’s a huge benefit to the immigration topic. It takes a lot of the hate out of it.

Speaking of race, the Obama presidency was a great step forward in the psychology of racial equality, but there is a risk it could someday look like a fluke of history and lose its power. That problem is instantly solved with a Carson presidency. There is a reason professional hit men put one bullet in the chest and one in the head. You often need the second shot to get the job done. Carson’s rise could be an enormous bit of luck for the country. A Carson presidency would not end racism, or even close, but it would certainly make an indelible point. And I would put a big dollar sign on that sort of improvement. Imagine a kid born during Obama’s first term. If we have eight years of a Carson presidency following Obama, those kids will think presidents are usually black. Compare that to grandpa’s time. Sort of different. And optimism drives the economy.

But what about Carson’s other opinions, you ask? Let’s look at a few and see how much we should care.

Evolution

Carson believes species evolve in small ways, but he is skeptical that anything evolved from one species to another. If Carson were not otherwise a man of science, that would be a bigger problem. But evolution is the one thing that has no impact on our lives. He can be as wrong as he likes on that one topic (assuming he is) so long he is pro-science in general. But is he pro-science?

Climate Change

Carson doesn’t think the man-made portion of climate change is a big deal. And I suppose that point of view could doom us all, according to science. But keep in mind that we are doomed by climate change (say most scientists) no matter who the president is. Carson has the only non-zero chance of making a dent in the issue, and that would be an accidental outcome from his influence on diet (potentially). 

(Technology could also fix climate change, but technology is not running for president.)

Abortion

Carson is maybe-okay with abortion when the life of the mother is involved, but otherwise he is pro-life. My view on abortion is that men should stay out of the conversation and let women work it out. I say that because women have brains and stuff, and men have nothing to add but a lack of feel for the situation. If men had babies and women did not, I can assure you we would not be looking for women’s opinions on the topic. So I abstain. But I respect any woman who bases a vote on this topic. That seems legitimate to me.

Miscellaneous

Gun control probably won’t change much no matter who is in office. The candidates’ tax plans and tough talk about dealing with other countries is not to be taken seriously. That is just election babble. And I doubt the federal government will get tougher on drugs no matter what the president wants. That trend is set. So I ignore all of that.

My prediction is that Trump will win the Republican nomination (based on campaign skills alone) and then go on to a landslide in the general election against Clinton. But the economic upside of a Carson presidency is at least comparable to a Trump scenario. If I am being objective, it had to be said.

I won’t be doing an analysis of Hillary Clinton’s economic upside potential because she told us in the debate that her gender is a job qualification. She’s dead to me.

—-

I wrote a book about systems versus goals. People seem to like it.

The Cage Fight President

As regular readers know, I believe humans are moist robots with little awareness of why we do what we do. For example, someone (I’m not sure who) pointed out that the American public usually votes for the presidential team that would win a cage fight. Let’s see if you agree. I will consider only the presidents from my lifetime, which roughly corresponds to the age of television.

Keep in mind that Republicans have lost every time they had a disabled vet (McCain and Dole) or a woman (Ferraro) on the ticket. Jimmy Carter, at 5′9″ lost reelection to Reagan. Those are the obvious ones. Let’s look at some more matchup.

1952: Eisenhower and Nixon beat Adlai Stevenson and Kefauver. Obviously the professional killer in that group was Eisenhower. And who loses a fight to someone named Adlai?

1956: Same match as above

1960: Kennedy and Johnson beat Nixon and Henry Cabot Lodge, as I imagine they would in a cage fight. Kennedy was young and vigorous, while Johnson was nearly 6′4″ and dangerous-sounding.

1964: Johnson and Humphrey beat Goldwater and Miller. Johnson was again the big dog (physically) in that race.

1968: Nixon and Agnew beat Humphrey (the ultimate beta male) and Muskie.

1972: Nixon and Agnew beat McGovern (beta male) and Shriver.

1976: Carter and Mondale beat Ford and Dole. (Dole has one good arm.)

1980: Reagan and Bush beat Carter (5′9″) and beta male Mondale. 

1984: Reagan and Bush beat beta male Mondale and Ferraro, as they would in a fight.

1988: Bush and Quayle beat little 5′8″ Dukakis and crypt-keeper Lloyd Bentsen.

Those matches were easy to call. But how about the ones after? You be the judge.

1992: Clinton and Gore beat Bush (senior) and Quayle.

1996: Clinton and Gore beat Dole and Kemp.

2000: Bush and Cheney beat Gore and Lieberman (but lost popular vote)

2004: Bush and Cheney beat Kerry and Edwards

2008: Obama and Biden beat McCain and Palin

2012: Obama and Biden beat Romney and Ryan

According to the cage fight hypothesis, who do you think would win a cage fight if the competitors were Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and Ben Carson?

We need to know the VP choices to make an informed prediction. But according to the cage fight hypothesis, Trump would beat either Carson and Clinton simply by picking another alpha male as a running mate. (Here I am assuming Gentle Ben Carson is not good in a fight.)

According to the cage fight hypothesis, Carson could beat Clinton by picking a large male running mate. Clinton could only win by picking Ronda Rousey as a running mate. And Trump would win with Mark Cuban as a running mate, at least under the cage fight hypothesis. Unless Rousey or someone with similar killing power runs with Clinton.

Do you see any validity to the cage fight hypothesis? I don’t want it to be true, but a lot of coincidences are piling up.

—

I wrote a book that says systems for success are better than goals. People say that idea is dramatically improving their lives. I hope so.

Downhill Both Ways

If you designed a city from scratch, could you build a major highway through it that was downhill both ways? 

I’ll try to describe how that could work. And yes, I will be cheating.

Imagine a barge floating in a man-made container of water. If you wanted to lift that barge and its contents, all you do is stick a water hose in the container and wait. As the water rises, so does the barge. The larger the hose, the faster the rise. And when you want the barge to come down, you drain it.

Now imagine two containers with two barges. Between them, we build a platform connected to the barges by arms. Like this (conceptually).

When both tanks are filled with water, the platform in the middle rises to meet the start of a road that was designed to rise gradually over several miles until it meets the platform. Drive off the platform and you are downhill all the way home.

Now duplicate the system on the other end, where most commuters live. The side with the most origination traffic (commuters) is the one that is highest but only for that part of the day. At the end of the commute, the heights reverse.

You would also need a third unrelated route to town, totally flat, for traveling outside commute hours. 

Okay, okay, lots of problems with this idea. Let me address a few. 

For starters, moving that much water is not easy. One solution might involve locating the city where there is a natural water source. But that water still needs to be lifted to the height of the tank. I see three ways to do that cheaply.

1. Locate near the base of a mountain stream, so water is starting out above your tank. Build pipes from the mountain streams/lakes to the tops of the water containers and let gravity do its thing.

2. Locate your city in a desert with an aquifer or ocean access. Dome the city or build it underground so weather does not interfere. Use solar power that is abundant during the day to pump water uphill for later.

3. Use the natural motion of life to pump water all day long. Ocean waves would be a good pump. And perhaps sidewalks could be designed so they pump a bit of water every time you walk on them. The pedestrian is happy for the softer sidewalk and the pumping happens all day long.

You also have a problem of getting the cars to the top of the water tank so they can head downhill. But let’s say those cars are required to park on the barge (or multiple barges) so the cars themselves rise all day long, from morning until it is time for the evening commute. Humans still need to take an elevator or stairs to the top of the platform, but that seems cheap.

Now let’s assume all cars are self-driving by then. You don’t need a car in your garage. But you do need to get to the raised platform, and that might be a mile away. No problem for a city designed underground with lots of bike paths on flat roads. Bike to your self-driving car location, take the elevator or walk to the top, and the self-driving car takes you downhill all the way to work. You might need a bike at the far end too, depending on your office location. But keep in mind that this is a designed city, so nothing is too far from anything else. Let’s say the whole city is ten miles across. You could bike the whole way if you wanted. The city is domed or underground, so weather is not an issue and roads are smooth.

And let’s assume the water you use for the barges does double-duty for farming and household use when drained. Nothing is wasted.

Could any version of this idea work if you designed your city from scratch?

[Update: Disqus locked me out and won’t let me comment from my preferred computer. It tries and apparently fails to send me an email to unlock it. It is not in spam or anywhere. I don’t have a week to dedicate to fix this so expect me absent for now.)

—

I wrote a book about systems versus goals. People seem to like it.

Funny Juxtaposition

This tweet would not have been so popular without the word “smugly.”

Why Donald Trump will Ruin the World

I promised myself that I wasn’t going to write about Donald Trump today. Then I saw this video clip in which a bearded fellow claims to know Trump’s morning routine. According to the bearded guy, an assistant brings a stack of Trump-related newspaper clips to Trump every morning. Trump glances at them, but rarely reads them, somewhere at around 6 AM. The headline for the video clip touts that it “tells you everything you need to know about Donald Trump.”

Apparently the only thing you need to know is that he’s a narcissist who loves attention. That’s one of the main media narratives about Trump, so watch their cherry-picked anecdotes support that story.

I watched the video clip about Trump’s morning routine around 6 AM, right after I looked at my blog comments, Google Alerts, new book reviews, and Twitter, to see what people said about me since the last time I checked. That’s my morning routine too. In the old days, I used a clipping service. All of this is normal for people in the media.

Am I a narcissist like Trump? Totally. But that would be missing the larger context. When your job is brand management – something Trump and I have in common – you have to watch how your brand is doing. And if something bad happened recently, you need to jump on it. That’s the job.

You might also wonder why Trump needs physical newspaper clippings in the digital age. I can answer that question too. Based on my media experience, I think there is a 75% chance the story is stale. He probably uses digital sources, especially Twitter, these days.

And if we are being realistic, Trump’s morning habit probably comes from his assistant, not from Trump. Trump barely glances at them. Then he does fifty other things in the morning. So I don’t think this one stale anecdote about something that brand managers routinely do is all we need to know about the man.

But let’s talk about the frightened citizens who genuinely believe Donald Trump could be a disaster as president, with his narcissism, xenophobia, bullying, huge ego, and selfish capitalist greed. That’s a scary list. But today we will view this list with the Master Persuader filter. The Master Persuader Hypothesis says that a persuader of Trump’s caliber will (always) send a large chunk of the population into a form of temporary irrationality called cognitive dissonance. I have predicted that you will see more of it, and that you can identify it by the tells.

So today I will describe some of the fears I hear about a potential Trump presidency. I will try to be objective.

Fear 1: Trump is a bully with a big mouth and no diplomatic nuance. He might offend a world leader and trigger a war. In unrelated news, we continue to be puzzled at how Trump has been a terrible person for several decades and yet we hear only glowing reports from the people who know him best, including his family, business associates, and friends. Even his ex-wife, Ivana, is pro-Trump. 

And Trump often reminds us that he was against the Iraq war. As a general rule, people who own tall buildings don’t like to start wars with people who blow up real estate for a living. If Trump is looking out for Trump assets, he isn’t going to be starting wars.

Fear 2: Trump is only in it for personal financial gain. Under this hypothesis, Trump will make decisions that help himself and his billionaire friends. Apparently he will be doing this while pursuing his plan to tax the rich at higher levels to keep social programs intact.

Fear 3: Trump’s motivations are narcissism and ego, so he is not in it for the right reasons. This is in stark contrast to the other candidates who are running for the highest office in the land while apparently believing they are unqualified. 

Fear 4: Trump only cares about Trump. He will make decisions that favor his company and his ego above the interests of the people. Under this way of thinking, the most famous brand manager alive does not realize that doing a shitty job as president is bad for the Trump brand. No one needs to stay at a Trump hotel and no one needs to golf at a Trump golf course. Trump’s business is the same as the business of the United States. He only does well in business if he does great as president. 

Fear 5: [Omitted by error.]

Fear 6: Trump is all hype. If he had invested his inherited fortune in an index fund and never worked a day in his life he would be worth more than he is now. But instead, Trump entered a variety of businesses, succeeded at many, learned from his mistakes, and employed tens of thousands of people while developing one of the most famous brands on earth. And now he will probably be president. Was that the wrong play?

Fear 7: Trump is a closet racist. We can tell by the way he talks about immigrants. For example, Trump wants more immigrants with technical skills to become citizens of the United States, and he wants fewer of the criminal types.

We also know Trump is a racist because of his proposal to ship eleven million illegal immigrants back home. Granted, Trump wrote a book describing how he always makes an aggressive first offer, every time, without exception, yet we are sure he didn’t mean it this time.

Here I remind you that I am not smart enough to know who would be a good president. Most of the candidates look qualified to me. My point today is to get a list going of the reasons people object to a Trump candidacy and see if those reasons survive light. If not, we have mass cognitive dissonance. If the reasons hold up, according to most of you, that means I’m the one with cognitive dissonance. I can never rule that out.

Judges, what do you think?

—

I wrote a book about the advantage of systems over goals. Trump is a systems thinker. It seems to be working.

Speaking of systems, Wally has a good one.

Trump’s Selfish Motives (Please explain them to me)

One of the biggest complaints I hear about Donald Trump is that he wants to become president for personal reasons. Apparently it has something to do with a combination of his narcissism, his ego, and his desire to make money. 

I can’t think of three worse qualities for a president to have: narcissism, big ego, and a selfish desire to make money. That mix of personality flaws would be a disaster to our communist system of …

Wait, sorry. I forgot we are a capitalist country with lots of media scrutiny and a republic form of government. In that specific case, you want your leader to be a narcissist with a big ego who wants to make lots of money and look good doing it. 

I want a president who thinks, “Why can’t they add one more head to Mt. Rushmore? All I need to do is perform my job really, really well, while the world watches my every move. I can do that!”

I have been trying to imagine a scenario in which Donald Trump could act in his own self-interest as president, at the expense of the country at large, and expect things to turn out well for him. What would be a potential example of that?

Correct me if I am wrong, but a president Trump would have every incentive to do the very best job, both for the country and for the Trump brand. To do otherwise would be breaking with his lifetime pattern of at least trying to excel at whatever he does. And it would be odd for him to throw the Trump brand under the bus.

On a related topic, I give you this quiz:

Q. When is a bully a good thing?

A. When he is on your side and bullying the other bullies.

I remind you that I don’t agree with several of Trump’s policy ideas, and I am not smart enough to know which candidate would do the best job as president. Nor do I plan to vote, because doing so makes me less credible as a blogger. I have been writing about Trump’s skills as a persuader (or brander) because I think that is something we can all learn from.

Today’s topic is not about persuasion. This topic is a genuine curiosity of mine because I think I might be the one with the blind spot. As many of you accurately pointed out, my writing about Trump is certain to install some extra bias in my brain. 

So help me out. Fill in my blind spot by describing how Donald Trump’s narcissism, huge ego, bullying ways, and desire to improve the value of the Trump brand would work against the citizens should he become their leader. Under what scenario would a President Trump believe that screwing citizens for personal gain works out for him in the long run?

That is a serious question. I think there might be something to that point of view, but I can’t see it. I need some examples.

Economics and Expectations (with a Trump point)

When I was studying economics in college, the most surprising thing I learned is that economics is what happens when you combine psychology with resources. I had assumed economics was more of a math/formula sort of discipline. There is plenty of that too, but the core of economics is human psychology.

Let’s talk about that.

The reason I say economics is psychology plus resources is that every transaction is based on human expectations. Businesses will invest heavily today if they believe customers are optimistic and likely to spend. If the mood is pessimism, and people are saving their pennies, those expectations stifle business investment. 

I could go on for an hour about how your expectations are what creates value in this world. For example, you only make deals with people that you expect to perform. You only hire people you expect to do the job well. You only spend money if you expect to someday make more. You only buy a home when you expect real estate values to be strong in the future. And so on.

Economies run on expectations. And expectations are the result of our complex human psychology.

Consider Donald Trump’s deal-making skills. One of the clever things he has done over his lifetime is build up a set of expectations around his personality and operating style. When he enters a negotiation, you expect him to keep hammering until he wins. But you also expect a lot of energy and attention when it comes to a Trump deal, so your odds of making money with a Trump deal are good even if you are not the “winner” of the negotiations. 

Now imagine a President Trump – a deal-making, super-optimist with a reputation for making money. What does that do to an economy? It probably super-charges it in a way no one has ever seen. The expectations under a Trump presidency would be similar to a Reagan vibe in the sense that people would assume the economy was going to trend up, so investment would follow that expectation.

Economics is a self-fulfilling system in the sense that optimism and expectations create money where there was none before.

Let me say that again. You can’t hear this too much. Optimism and positive expectations create money where there was none before.

Now let me take this down to the small.

Inside Donald’s Trump’s skull is a moist, wrinkly, grey object that weighs about three pounds. That thing is glowing with optimism. If it gets into the Oval Office, a billion souls will change their expectation about the economy of the planet. And not one of them will be adjusting their expectations downward.

If you were to put a dollar value on the wrinkly, grey, three-pound object in Trump’s skull, what would it be?

My estimate is around a trillion dollars. That’s what an optimist-president (who is also a deal-maker) can add to an economy over eight years. Because economics is psychology. 

I remind you that I am not smart enough to know who would be the best president. And I’m not a fan of Trump’s stand on some social issues. But objectively speaking, a trillion dollars goes a long way toward helping people who need it.

If you don’t want a Trump presidency, I certainly understand that. We all have different priorities. But before you make your final decision, you should have an estimate for what it would cost to pick a candidate who does not have a positive impact on the psychology of the economy.