
Charisma / Power - wslh
http://www.paulgraham.com/pow.html
======
auternach
So lets analyze this for a moment.

We have defined a "Builder Type" CEO who is not charismatic yet is defined by
being able to build and ship things. Like Mark Zuckerberg minus his team of PR
people.

Then we have a "Charismatic Type" CEO who people like but who can't get
anything done.

By this definition, Obama would be the useless yet charismatic CEO. Hillary,
who has never built anything (that I can identify), would be a "Builder" type
(apparently?). And Donald Trump...who _indisputably_ has built things despite
being both charismatic and hated would blend both of these together?

I don't agree with this analysis. It isn't that easy to slice this one.

~~~
jolux
>Hillary, who has never built anything (that I can identify), would be a
"Builder" type (apparently?).

Well what do you define as building? She was a successful legislator and built
up a charity and public speaking business for herself out of almost nothing.

~~~
adventured
I don't believe the Clinton Foundation or public speaking business (which Bill
also pursued) was built up out of nothing. What greater head-start could you
get to begin building a public speaking business or foundation than to be
either the former President or married to the world famous former President of
the only superpower? The connections, the access to money and favors, the uber
rich people (eg Wall Street) that want to buy your ear, it's beyond immense.

~~~
jolux
Uh, Trump was given tons of money by his dad and inherited tons more, and
there's no conclusive evidence that he's had net gains on that money.

------
kaiku
I think PG makes a few assumptions in this musing that deserve more though and
criticism. Power and charisma together often brew megalomania, and I don't see
charisma itself as a powerful person's antidote to being hated. Without diving
into politics, I think there are a few good arguments out there for "lack of
charisma" being the least of HRC's problems.

I'd be more interested to hear PG explore his own relationship to charisma and
power on a personal and professional level than read this oddly deflecting set
of statements.

------
quirkot
This is a false dichotomy. How does one "build things" without deploying the
charisma necessary to change processes and people? How does one "build things"
without schmoozing nay-sayers into agreement and finding acceptable
modifications to the original plan.

------
siliconc0w
Is there any data that 'builder' type presidents are better than charismatic
ones? In our hyper-media age you need charisma or you'll fail to effect
change. This may or may not be a good thing as the change charismatic leaders
want may or may not be ultimately good for the nation but it seems to be a
necessary (but not solely sufficient) ingredient for greatness.

------
nsx147
The builder type focuses on building product. The charismatic type focuses on
building social value, to build the product

Naturally they both excel at each, ultimately 2 different means to the same
end

------
programminggeek
Donald Trump is both a powerful builder and very charismatic. He builds
buildings and has loads of charisma.

The dichotomy between Trump and Hillary is false in this case on dimensions
other than simply having charisma.

Trump had more charisma than Hillary as well as the 16 or whatever ridiculous
number of GOP candidates there were at one point.

Bernie Sanders was the only candidate in this cycle with a similar level of
charisma and Democrats did the thing that the GOP did the previous 2 elections
- and it cost them.

~~~
krapp
Trump is many things, and charismatic may be one of them, although personally
I don't see it, but "a powerful builder" is not one of them.

Trump doesn't build buildings - he licenses his name to buildings other people
build. He doesn't even own most of the properties that bear his name. The only
thing he can feasibly claim to have built is his own celebrity, and prior to
his recent status, his celebrity might generously be described as b-list - he
was a reality show star who was once a professional wrestling celebrity heel
and sometimes guest starred as himself on various tv shows.

The distinction is important, I believe, because to me, "builder" implies
someone with a passion and a deep understanding of the art of whatever they
make their living at. I don't see a passion about architecture or design from
Trump, nor do I get a sense that he understands how they work, or that he
cares.

~~~
adventured
Most of the mega developers do not own all of what they build or buy into. The
richest real estate billionaires of the last 50 years, most of them develop
large projects in investment groups. You're presenting a hollow argument
against Trump, judging by the investment style of his billionaire real estate
peers.

~~~
krapp
>The richest real estate billionaires of the last 50 years, most of them
develop large projects in investment groups.

They don't deserve to be considered "builders" either. Certainly not "builders
of buildings."

------
untilHellbanned
So that's the problem, "we" virtually never recognize that the builder is the
right one for the job. The charismatic person always gets the
job/money/fame/whatever.

------
bassman9000
Hillary Clinton as a Builder? Building for whom? Have we already forgotten her
disastrous State Dep. run? Has she built or destroyed in the Middle East?

Whitewashing comes early.

------
eachro
Who embodies both(builder + schmoozer)? Surely they exist right?

~~~
programminggeek
Donald Trump.

He is literally off the charts both. He builds very large, impressive
buildings for a living.

He is enough of a charismatic individual that through force of personality won
the presidency.

~~~
peteretep
My understanding is that he's generated less returns off his inheritance than
he would have done by investing in index funds. If true, isn't he just a rich
kid spending his inheritance?

~~~
adventured
He didn't inherit any large sum, that was a fraudulent story pushed by the
left to attack Trump. It's not an exaggeration to say that there was zero
evidence presented to support that claim.

Trump has said he received a million dollar loan to get started (circa early
1970s?). The return he generated, to say the least, was extraordinary.

Further, even going by that bogus story, not all sectors of the economy
generate the same returns. A person is not to be shamed for making less money
in retail or dog food than in tech or oil. One has to consider the results
they generated in the field they chose to focus in. It's disingenuous, and
then some, to hold all business people up to the standard of: well if you had
just put all your money, at some arbitrary high point, into an index fund for
N years, you'd be richer - that would discredit nearly all successful business
people.

Hey Sam Walton, if you had just liquidated all of your Walmart shares in 1992
before you died and put the wealth into an index fund, your family would be
richer. That's mathematically correct and ridiculous. Off the top of my head I
can list dozens of examples like this among the Forbes 400 past or present.

~~~
peteretep
I was reasonably sure there were well cited stories in the NYT showing his
effective inheritance was huge, and that he'd massively underperformed
compared to other NY property developers. Are those fake news because they're
from NYT?

edit: also I'm not entirely sure Marco Rubio counts as "liberal media", but
I'm not up to date with the latest lingo. Politifact seems to think $1m is
fairly unlikely though:
[http://www.politifact.com/florida/article/2016/mar/07/did-
do...](http://www.politifact.com/florida/article/2016/mar/07/did-donald-trump-
inherit-100-million/)

~~~
adventured
No, there was never any evidence provided to support the claim. Trump publicly
stated over, and over, and over again that it wasn't correct. The liberal
media never gave evidence post any of those statements by Trump about the
million dollar loan, to refute him. Then they entirely dropped the attack as a
vector, obviously because they couldn't support it.

edit: I never said Marco Rubio was part of the liberal media. You're inventing
that false setup. I said the liberal media, that doesn't mean Marco Rubio must
belong to the liberal media if he also said x y z about Trump. Given how very
heated the race was, why would it be surprising for any of the Republican
competitors to latch on to the same attacks?

So in other words, there's zero evidence to support Trump inheriting a vast
fortune, exactly as I said.

~~~
peteretep
According to this article, Trump said in a deposition that he borrowed $9m
against future inheritance, making claims it was only worth $1m suspect. Seems
hard to get decent figures, other than those that show he consistently lies
about the situation:

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/fact-
checker/wp/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/fact-
checker/wp/2016/03/03/trumps-false-claim-he-built-his-empire-with-a-small-
loan-from-his-father/)

