By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Readers are encouraged to submit news tips to The Daily Beast. The submission process is simple and readily accessible via a provided link. This allows for citizen journalism and ensures The Daily Beast receives a wide range of information. Contributions may lead to published stories and impactful investigative journalism. This is an open invitation to share information with the publication.
Read the original article here
The Wall Street Journal, under Rupert Murdoch’s ownership, recently issued a pointed critique of Donald Trump’s financial acumen, essentially questioning whether he truly understands money. This isn’t a new concern, as many have long voiced similar doubts.
The article’s central argument hinges on Trump’s history of business failures, particularly his multiple bankruptcies. Six bankruptcies, to be precise, is a significant number for anyone, let alone someone aspiring to, or already holding, the highest office in the land. It strongly suggests a lack of fundamental understanding of financial management and risk assessment.
The casino bankruptcies are particularly telling. Casinos, by their very nature, are designed to generate profit. The fact that Trump managed to bankrupt one, a business model explicitly predicated on taking in more money than it pays out, speaks volumes about his business capabilities. This isn’t just a matter of bad luck; it points to a profound misunderstanding of basic economic principles.
Beyond the bankruptcies, other examples fuel the argument against Trump’s financial competence. His advocacy of tariffs, for instance, demonstrates a flawed grasp of international trade and its potential economic consequences. Such policies, many experts believe, would ultimately harm the American economy rather than benefit it, as Trump repeatedly claimed.
This criticism from the Wall Street Journal carries significant weight. The publication enjoys a reputation for serious financial reporting, making its skepticism of Trump’s economic knowledge a credible indictment of his leadership abilities. The fact that this assessment is coming from a media outlet historically aligned with conservative viewpoints underscores the gravity of the situation.
The irony, however, is not lost on many observers. Some critics point to the Journal’s own past support for Trump and question the timing of this change in narrative. Did they simply change their mind, or is there a deeper strategic calculation at play?
Regardless of the motives, the criticisms leveled against Trump’s economic literacy are consistent with numerous other assessments of his abilities and character. Descriptions ranging from “moron” to “childlike” in their understanding of complex issues have repeatedly surfaced from individuals who have worked closely with him.
The question then becomes not only whether Trump understands money but also whether he understands governance. Many commentators draw a direct line between his business failures and his performance as president. If he couldn’t successfully manage a casino, how could he possibly manage a nation’s economy and its intricate web of international relations?
This skepticism extends beyond the realm of financial understanding; it touches upon his general intellectual capacity. Multiple sources suggest a lack of understanding about the intricacies of government institutions and their roles. This ignorance, combined with a disregard for established norms and procedures, is seen by many as a dangerous combination.
In the end, the Wall Street Journal’s assessment is part of a much larger conversation about Trump’s fitness for office. While this particular article focuses on his grasp of financial matters, it speaks to a broader concern about his intellectual capabilities and ability to govern effectively. The underlying issue transcends the question of money; it’s about whether someone with such demonstrably questionable judgment should ever have been entrusted with the responsibility of leading a nation.