I dont know which scenario is worse for a president, an experienced economist like him not understanding what he was endorsing or being part of the scam.
He is not an experienced economist. He holds a Master's from a third-rate private university and a doctorate from a degree mill. This myth needs to die.
> He worked for various years as senior economist in a bank
Ah, it looks like you were in a coma between about 2006 and 2012. I have bad news. Sometimes (whisper it!) banks _employ incompetent people_. I would be reluctant to take "oh, well, he once worked for _HSBC_" as that much of an endorsement.
Not to say that everyone who worked for HSBC was incompetent. But, er, clearly they were not all hypercompetent either, given what happened.
He is experienced. I didn't say he did or didn't do a good job there. My answer is a response to "he has no experience as an economist". It's not a response to what you are argumenting.
Similar question, is it better or worse if our country commits war or war is committed upon us?
And perhaps a different question, regardless if whether it is better or worse, which would we rather be if we had to chose.
Also let's remember that 'neither' is also an option. And oops just happened once but let's not make it a habit, is too. No need to go to extremes.