The rest, you don't know who your are, even if you read this, you won't understand it so please don't comment. Elegantly simple explanation into the inexplicably destructive negotiating processes of the president, by Prof. David Honig of Indiana University. it’s not particularly clever in the sense of offering a novel or elegant insight. It’s more of a straightforward, academic explanation of Trump’s negotiation style, contrasting distributive vs. integrative bargaining. Could do with some counter points showing when Trump was accidentally right. “I’m going to get a little wonky and write about Donald Trump and negotiations. For those who don't know, I'm an adjunct professor at Indiana University - Robert H. McKinney School of Law and I teach negotiations. Okay, here goes. Trump, as most of us know, is the credited author of "The Art of the Deal," a book that was actually ghost written by a man named Tony Schwartz, who was given access to Trump and wrote based upon his observations. If you've read The Art of the Deal, or if you've followed Trump lately, you'll know, even if you didn't know the label, that he sees all dealmaking as what we call "distributive bargaining." Distributive bargaining always has a winner and a loser. It happens when there is a fixed quantity of something and two sides are fighting over how it gets distributed. Think of it as a pie and you're fighting over who gets how many pieces. In Trump's world, the bargaining was for a building, or for construction work, or subcontractors. He perceives a successful bargain as one in which there is a winner and a loser, so if he pays less than the seller wants, he wins. The more he saves the more he wins. The other type of bargaining is called integrative bargaining. In integrative bargaining the two sides don't have a complete conflict of interest, and it is possible to reach mutually beneficial agreements. Think of it, not a single pie to be divided by two hungry people, but as a baker and a caterer negotiating over how many pies will be baked at what prices, and the nature of their ongoing relationship after this one gig is over. The problem with Trump is that he sees only distributive bargaining in an international world that requires integrative bargaining. He can raise tariffs, but so can other countries. He can't demand they not respond. There is no defined end to the negotiation and there is no simple winner and loser. There are always more pies to be baked. Further, negotiations aren't binary. China's choices aren't (a) buy soybeans from US farmers, or (b) don't buy soybeans. They can also (c) buy soybeans from Russia, or Argentina, or Brazil, or Canada, etc. That completely strips the distributive bargainer of his power to win or lose, to control the negotiation. One of the risks of distributive bargaining is bad will. In a one-time distributive bargain, e.g. negotiating with the cabinet maker in your casino about whether you're going to pay his whole bill or demand a discount, you don't have to worry about your ongoing credibility or the next deal. If you do that to the cabinet maker, you can bet he won't agree to do the cabinets in your next casino, and you're going to have to find another cabinet maker. There isn't another Canada. So when you approach international negotiation, in a world as complex as ours, with integrated economies and multiple buyers and sellers, you simply must approach them through integrative bargaining. If you attempt distributive bargaining, success is impossible. And we see that already. Trump has raised tariffs on China. China responded, in addition to raising tariffs on US goods, by dropping all its soybean orders from the US and buying them from Russia. The effect is not only to cause tremendous harm to US farmers, but also to increase Russian revenue, making Russia less susceptible to sanctions and boycotts, increasing its economic and political power in the world, and reducing ours. Trump saw steel and aluminum and thought it would be an easy win, BECAUSE HE SAW ONLY STEEL AND ALUMINUM - HE SEES EVERY NEGOTIATION AS DISTRIBUTIVE. China saw it as integrative, and integrated Russia and its soybean purchase orders into a far more complex negotiation ecosystem. Trump has the same weakness politically. For every winner there must be a loser. And that's just not how politics works, not over the long run. For people who study negotiations, this is incredibly basic stuff, negotiations 101, definitions you learn before you even start talking about styles and tactics. And here's another huge problem for us. Trump is utterly convinced that his experience in a closely held real estate company has prepared him to run a nation, and therefore he rejects the advice of people who spent entire careers studying the nuances of international negotiations and diplomacy. But the leaders on the other side of the table have not eschewed expertise, they have embraced it. And that means they look at Trump and, given his very limited tool chest and his blindly distributive understanding of negotiation, they know exactly what he is going to do and exactly how to respond to it. From a professional negotiation point of view, Trump isn't even bringing checkers to a chess match. He's bringing a quarter that he insists of flipping for heads or tails, while everybody else is studying the chess board to decide whether its better to open with Najdorf or Grünfeld.” — David Honig
A little awkward and redundant there Tsingy. My brain nearly tripped trying to understand what you said. A clearer alternative might be: "Another insightful post on cognitive processes." "Another well-reasoned post on cognition." "Another sharp analysis of cognitive reasoning."
Well, I did say 10th grade readers so I guess you make the mark, therefore I need to make the effort to include you, even if your post was stupid.
What is bothering @Tsing Tao is that it's simpler to say Trump only understands "Zero Sum Game" scenarios. Every trader has at least some grasp here. The author is using language from a different academic field and so this seems long winded to him.
Wrong yet again. I didn't even read your post, because it was a waste of time just like everything you post. No one pays attention to you. You're like the court jester, where everyone is aware of you being an idiot at the far end of the room, and occasionally, when bored, someone pays attention to you for a laugh. I just thought it was funny that you began a post with how people wouldn't be smart enough to understand, and you couldn't even manage a grammatically correct first line.
Yeah, I know you didn’t read the post. The thing is, you understood the first line just fine because I wrote it in a simple conversational style.... intended for, you know, less sophisticated readers. The rest is a copied article, and the guy's a subject matter expert (SME). You are confusing absurdist viewpoint with a clown. A clown is what you see in a mirror. An intentional spelling mistake was used, not a grammatical error.
Trump is big footing, Guantanamo, El Salvador with prisons open for anyone Trump wants to get rid of. No illegal wants to end up in El Salvador, just go home now. NGOs, cutouts buying assassins that miss. They say when you come at the king you better not miss.