By John Q. Hosedrinker 
According to National Economic Council director Kevin Hassett, President Trump bases his positive economic claims on specific areas where progress has been made, rather than overall economic indicators. Hassett explained that Trump focuses on items like prescription drugs and gasoline, which have seen price decreases, to support his claims of falling prices. This approach, however, contrasts with data showing a rise in consumer prices and personal consumption indices. Many viewers interpreted Hassett’s statements as an admission that the president is only exposed to selective data.
Read the original article here
Trump’s Econ Goon Lets Slip That President Is Fed Flattering Numbers
It seems the whispers are getting louder, the cracks in the facade wider. We’re hearing murmurs, or perhaps more accurately, declarations, that the former president wasn’t exactly getting the whole picture when it came to economic data. The idea is that his inner circle, his “econ goons” as some are calling them, were carefully curating the information he received. The goal? To feed him numbers that painted a rosy, and perhaps even misleading, picture of the economic landscape, at least from his perspective.
This pattern, if true, is hardly surprising. It aligns with what we’ve seen from those close to him. The reports suggest a consistent desire to shield him from anything that might be perceived as negative, preferring to present him with a constant stream of positive news to fuel his ego. This is the definition of confirmation bias, and it seems this strategy included cherry-picking the economic data he saw. It’s a dangerous game, one that can lead to disastrous decisions based on a skewed understanding of reality.
The potential ramifications of such a practice are vast. Policy decisions, for example, are made on the assumption that the data presented is accurate. If that data is deliberately skewed to flatter the president, then the resulting policies will be, at best, ineffective, and at worst, actively harmful. This echoes a much larger question: how can a leader make sound choices if they’re not fully informed? This situation reinforces long held criticisms of the former administration, where the suggestion is that the former president was not only unwilling to hear bad news, but actively surrounded himself with people who would tell him what he wanted to hear.
This approach speaks to the former president’s potential aversion to negative information. The idea is that it could trigger a negative reaction. Some suggest it could have led to a kind of constant state of denial, where anything that didn’t fit the desired narrative was simply dismissed. It’s an environment that encourages sycophancy, where advisors and staff compete to provide the most pleasing version of the truth, rather than the complete picture. The potential for this type of leadership is to be detached from reality.
Of course, this isn’t the first time such concerns have been raised. Early in his first term, it was reported that he required a daily folder of positive news about himself. This reveals a fundamental issue with how leadership was being practiced. It also underscores a larger issue: a leader’s willingness to be honest with themselves, and with those they serve.
In this situation, the former president seems to have a natural predisposition to distort or fabricate information to create the narrative he wishes to portray. It seems that this characteristic could be exacerbated by an environment where the truth is intentionally filtered and manipulated. This creates a cycle where bad policy is a predictable outcome.
This situation reflects a much larger problem. When leaders are insulated from the truth, the consequences can be significant. The people in the room, seemingly attempting to please the head of state, are more concerned with keeping him happy than with being truthful. It’s a formula for failure, where policy decisions are made in a vacuum, divorced from reality.
The claim being made here is not that the former president was merely presented with some positive data. It is that the information he was receiving was selectively chosen to reflect an intentionally skewed viewpoint. To be clear, the accusations suggest that the former president received economic data that intentionally favored his view.
It’s a pattern that seems to have played out repeatedly over the course of his career, a fundamental misunderstanding of reality. It’s a sad picture, but one that aligns with what many have observed about the former president’s approach to information and decision-making. The core issue here is the same core issue that arises in many similar situations. And it is about the truth.